Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Simplified Planning Zones

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, under the proposals for creating simplified planning zones, he will make it his policy to remove the obligation on local authorities mandatorily to consider the creation of such zones; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): The requirement of the Housing and Planning Bill is no more than that the authority shall consider whether simplified planning zones should be established. I see no likelihood at all that local authorities, or the Secretary of State, would require such zones to be set up in areas in which they would be environmentally unsuitable.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I support his proposition of SPZs in urban areas. Is he aware that forcing local authorities which do not want to do so, to go through all the bureaucratic exercise of doing the job is not only annoying, but reinforces the views of those who are worried about the whole thrust of Government policy? Will he re-examine the Bill to see whether he can restrict the obligation to urban areas only?

Mr. Patten: We do not want to increase bureaucracy. That is not the intention of SPZs, which are meant to reduce bureaucracy. However, I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, which he has put forward strongly on behalf of his constituents. I undertake to look again in Committee at the points that he has made.

Mr. Nellist: Is not the simplification of planning zones fraught with problems, as the London Docklands Development Corporation, which is a halfway house towards simplification of planning zones, has shown over the illegality of the razor wire fence at News International's plant at Wapping? Would not the full simplification of planning zones bring about even more such abuses?

Mr. Patten: No, not at all. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the docklands development in London has introduced more than £1 billion of capital and much needed development.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: My hon. Friend's reassuring answer will be very welcome. Are not Dorset and other areas in the south of England places where SPZs are clearly unsuitable and unwanted, and would be an environmental disaster?

Mr. Patten: I am always anxious to try to reassure the county of Dorset, and I have already given the undertaking to look in Committee at SPZs in connection with rural, urban, green belt and other areas.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that the proposal for SPZs is causing great concern and is believed to be a way of undermining the green belt areas, the areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas, especially as they were excluded in the consultative document but not in the Bill? Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that SPZs will not be allowed in green belt and other special areas?

Mr. Patten: I have already said that during the passage of the Bill in Committee we will conisder the point about green belt development. Will the hon. Gentleman speak to his Labour colleagues in the controlling groups on Oxford and Cambridge city councils, who want to make incursions into green belt areas, and get them to restrain themselves?

Mr. Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend accept that this concept has to be confined to urban areas, and for that matter derelict urban areas? Will he seek to delineate those areas in the Bill?

Mr. Patten: That is an interesting suggestion. One of the reasons for introducing SPZs is to do all that we can to help inner city areas, a policy which I know my hon. Friend supports. We must also look closely at the important environmental points that my hon. Friend has made.

British Nuclear Fuels

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with British Nuclear Fuels regarding the monitoring of waste products; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend visited Sellafield in October 1985. There has been no formal ministerial meeting with BNFL since then.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not go up to Sellafield and tell the management that the British people are fed up to the back teeth with hearing the management continually pour out lies about all the outbreaks that are taking place? There has been another outbreak in the last 24 hours, and the management has had to admit today that two workers have been slightly contaminated, which it denied yesterday. Will the Minister go up there and tell the management that there should be a proper truly independent public inquiry and that if it is found necessary to close the plant every worker will be paid for as long as the inquiry lasts?

Mr. Waldegrave: I find the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental pollution a little selective. We do not have the benefit of his advice in the House when we are debating pollution from coal-fired power stations. It is right that people inside and outside the House should recognise that the record at Sellafield has been good despite the problems, which my Department recognises and discusses with the management.
It is also right that those inside and outside the House should accept that some of those who attack Sellafield do so, not because they are worried about pollution, but because they see in the civil nuclear industry a dangerous competitor to the coal mining industry.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Franks: Will my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent Cumbrian constituencies, are sick and tired of the lack of real information from Sellafield about incidents? Will he instruct BNFL that the public need to be reassured, not in the jargon of arrogant scientists, but in language that the layman can understand and accept?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record is good, but there is no question but that we have to do better at getting that across to the people. We must make it clear that the public concern is being met and that the public institutions which exist to check that the record is good are open to public inspection.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that B30, where yesterday's incident took place, is about to be decommissioned because it is an old plant and is to be replaced by pond 5? I hope that no such incidents will take place in the future. Does he also accept that if the plant were to close there would be a loss not only of 11,000 jobs in West Cumbria but of a further 15,000 to 20,000 jobs which are indirectly involved in and dependent on the nuclear industry? In the light of that, is it not unacceptable that many people in Britain, including environmental groups, demand closure of the plant when they know that perfectly reasonable and sensible options are open to the industry to resolve the problems? Is it not fair to say that if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does its work in the way that it should there should be no problems in future?

Mr. Waldegrave: No one has a better right than the hon. Gentleman to speak on this matter, because he understands the real environmental concern and knows that they can be met. My Department strengthened the Radio Chemical Inspectorate last year and insisted on a greater monitoring programme by the plant. We are in discussion with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a new authorising limit, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no problem here which cannot be dealt with. It will be dealt with and, in all the important cases, is already being dealt with. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about pond 5. That is another of the major steps to improvement at the plant.

Mr. Forman: Is it not clear that nothing useful will be achieved in this important matter by the hysterical approach of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? In view of that, will my hon. Friend take the trouble to put in Hansard the figures for the increased numbers of staff in the relevant inspectorates, which is important, and also

the details of the long-run epidemiological monitoring, which is necessary to see that there is no damage to human health?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall be delighted to do as my hon. Friend requests, and I shall see that it is done. After the Black report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to monitor those matters on a permanent basis. That was a sensible thing to do, and it received support from all those whose concern about this is serious and not merely hysterical.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who have supported the nuclear industry all our political lives will reject his argument that those who express concern about the enviromental aspects of nuclear power are somehow trying to promote the coal industry? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a false argument and only creates false impressions? Will he accept that some of us are growing increasingly worried about the competence and sometimes the arrogance of some of the higher levels of management in BNFL? Does he agree that it would be far better if management were more open and honest in giving answers on matters of direct concern to the public?

Mr. Waldegrave: I took great care to differentiate between people's concerns. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose constituents are near Sellafield, has more right and reason to be concerned about this matter than have many other hon. Members. I recognise that there are proper concerns, which are shared by Conservative Members, to ensure that the right thing is done and is seen to be done. In so far as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) supports that aim, I certainly agree with him. I would not wish to say that everyone's concerns are hysterical. We must recognise that some people are deliberately stirring up the issue.

Mr. Hickmet: Great concern is felt about the announcement of the proposals by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive on the storage of nuclear waste. Why has there not been an announcement since that list was delivered on 8 January? Will there be an announcement shortly? Are alternative solutions being considered?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend can expect an announcement shortly. The matter has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers collectively.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us with nuclear power stations in our constituencies are concerned when nuclear waste is entrusted to the BNFL and incidents such as we have heard about occur? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Sellafield is open to international and European inspection? What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Scottish and Welsh environmental departments about environmental aspects, and with the Irish Government, who have expressed serious concern about pollution in the Irish sea?

Mr. Waldegrave: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the Republic of Ireland are closely involved in this matter. Some months ago we set up with the Government of the


Republic a joint committee at official level, which has been working well and exchanging information. There is no reason to hide anything. There are good arrangements for inspection. Information is published and available and is reported to all the international organisations with an interest in it.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parents in south-west Scotland, including my constituency, are genuinely worried about the effect of radioactive discharges from Sellafield and possible links with the high incidence of leukaemia? Does he agree that it does neither the work force at Sellafield nor parents any good for the management at Sellafied, after four incidents this year, to give yet more bland reassurances? They do not reassure parents. Will the hon. Gentleman meet Scottish Office Ministers to consider what urgent action can be taken to allay the genuine fears of parents in southwest Scotland?

Mr. Waldegrave: The first responsibility of all of us who have the privilege of being hon. Members and having all the information easily available to us is to do our part in allaying unnecessary fears. I know that the hon. Gentleman will do that. I shall certainly be delighted to meet my opposite numbers in the Scottish Office to discuss whether anything further should be done. We meet regularly on this issue.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that there is always a measurable risk in terms of health and safety at plants, whether petro-chemical plants, oil-fired power stations or steelworks? Is not the safety record of the nuclear industry second to none? Are not the safety measures which are rightly imposed on the industry also second to none? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the general public should not be alarmed, because the nuclear industry is a controllable industry on which we shall have to rely in future years?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no great industrial activity that does not contain some risk. I have to say that the nuclear industry is asked to work, and does work, to far higher tolerances of safety than any other industry. If one compares the number of people injured or even killed in other tragically high risk industries, or even higher risk industries, such as railways or mining, one finds that the record of the nuclear industry is second to none.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the country will regard his replies as extremely complacent, just as they regard the attitude of the chief spokesman for the Labour party as completely hypocritical? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness, I have not yet called the chief spokesman for the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman must not cast such aspersions upon anybody in the House.

Mr. Hughes: The remarks made by the chief spokesman for the Labour party—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would help the House and himself if he withdrew the statement.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Speaker, at your behest I shall withdraw the remark. The remarks made by the chief

spokesman for the Labour party in public are entirely unacceptable, because if the House had followed the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party and all of his colleagues, who unanimously and alone in 1978 opposed the extension of reprocessing, we would not have had the problems that we have had since then. Will the Minister—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister accept that unless there is a suspension of reprocessing, and until there is international inspection and a chance for the House to debate the Select Committee report, there will be no confidence in the Government, in BNFL or in its chairman?

Mr. Waldegrave: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the eloquent speech of the leader of the Social Democratic party on the occasion of the debate on the THORP reprocessing plant. He might learn something that would be helpful to his contribution to these debates.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister accept that, with my hon. Friends, I regard the blaming of the work force for the problems of the management of the nuclear industry as unacceptable? We also regard mass unemployment, as advocated by the Liberal party spokesman, to solve the problems as unacceptable. Will he recognise that the series of incidents, however minor in radiological terms, which have occurred in the past few weeks at Sellafield can do nothing other than undermine public confidence in the industry and its future? In view of the Minister's remarks about the need for more openness, will the Government undertake to review the workings of the Official Secrets Act as it applies to the civil nuclear industry? Will the Government invite the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—that arm of the Health and Safety Executive which is the public's statutory and independent watchdog in these matters—to carry out a rigorous, independent safety audit of the old part of the Magnox fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield? Will they ensure that such a report is made public and debated in the House? Will the Government reject the opportunist and contemptible remarks and inconsistent attitudes of the alliance, as demonstrated by the SDP and the Liberal party?

Mr. Waldegrave: For a moment I was not sure to whom the hon. Gentleman was pointing. It behoves us all to reject some of the irresponsible riding of bandwagons that there has been on this subject. It brings no pleasure to my Department or anyone else to have to read in the newspapers about the problems of Sellafield. We must all recognise that with an enormous plant, some of which is old in industrial terms, there will be some problems from time to time. We must keep a sense of proportion about the matter. We have a group examining the publication of information about environmental matters in general. I shall ensure that this matter is dealt with by that group. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Health and Safety Commission may well consider his suggestion carefully. It would seem to have some merit.

Football (Crowd Behaviour)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the football authorities about crowd behaviour.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): We continue to review progress and issues in my working group, comprising representatives of the football authorities, the Home Office and Department of Transport. The group last met a week ago on Wednesday 12 February.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the Belgian Government's ban on all British teams playing in Belgium following the tragic events in the Heysel stadium last May, and the fact that Scotland has now been drawn to play Belgium in the European Nations Cup, will the Minister remind the Belgian Government that I am still awaiting the courtesy of a reply to my letter to them of last May in which I pointed out that FIFA and UEFA draw a distinction between Scottish and English football? They are not punishing Scottish football teams and their supporters for the misconduct of some English supporters. The Belgian Government should follow suit by lifting their ban immediately on Scottish teams and allow them to play in Belgium.

Mr. Tracey: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. He has correctly drawn attention to the narrower definition put upon teams by UEFA and FIFA. It must be for the Belgian Government, with their much broader interpretation, to determine when and how they should ease their ban on British teams. In all the circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to seek to intervene.

Mr. Powley: I support the discussions that have taken place between my hon. Friend and the football authorities, but does he agree that we need to encourage a greater sense of self-discipline in some sportsmen and some members of the crowds who go to sporting events, thus diminishing the amount of crowd and sportsmen's misbehaviour?

Mr. Tracey: I entirely agree. Within my working group we have had considerable discussions about the community interest which we encourage between football clubs and the communities around them. I applaud those football clubs which encourage community interest and family involvement.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: What discussion has the Minister had with the football authorities and the police in the light of the dreadful incident that occurred recently outside the Liverpool stadium, when soccer hooligans, not fans, squirted a harmful liquid into the faces of the Manchester United players? What preventive measures does he intend to take to stop the recurrence of such an incident, when a footballer may be seriously injured or killed?

Mr. Tracey: That was a regrettable incident and one which both sides of the House will deplore. It was a matter of public order and there is a police investigation into it. It would be wrong for me to comment further at this stage.

Inner City Regeneration

Mr. Lawler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has for regeneration of the inner cities.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The Housing and Planning Bill was given a Second Reading on 4 February.

Mr. Lawler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £100 million underspend on urban development grant during the past three years represents many wasted opportunities for redevelopment of the inner cities? Will he pledge that the allocation will not be cut next year, but that officials will assist and encourage local authorities and other organisations to seek out more eligible schemes, especially in those areas, such as Bradford, which were excluded from the recent policy initiative?

Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is regrettable that in the first two years of the urban development grant there was a slow take-up, to which the Select Committee has drawn attention. I have no doubt that UDG is an excellent type of grant, and it already supports 146 projects, involving £330 million. Bradford has benefited by about £5 million. I have seen the large derelict site in the middle of Bradford—a dump called Listerhills—and proposals are coming to me about it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Secretary of State read the 10th report of this Session of the Public Accounts Committee, which shows that the urban programme has not been spent up to the limit agreed by the Treasury for each of the past three years? Is that not wrong and, indeed, disgraceful? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Baker: I am trying to ensure that we spend up to the limit. I have read the report, which is an interesting and useful contribution to the debate. I attach considerable importance to the urban programme. Where we have underspent on UDG, I have allocated it to, for example, development corporations and derelict land grant.

Mr. Heddle: As a high proportion of the buildings in inner cities are derelict, obsolete or under-utilised, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider redirecting part of the urban regeneration grant, which the Housing and Planning Bill introduces, and which Conservative Members welcome, to revitalise buildings as well as the land on which they stand?

Mr. Baker: The powers of grant that I am taking in the Housing and Planning Bill will allow me and other Ministers a considerable degree of flexibility in devising ways of supporting the inner cities, whether for land or for buildings. I am sure that money spent on the reclamation of derelict land in our cities is money well spent.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that in the United States urban regeneration bonds offering tax free interest payments on long-term investments have been extremely successful in attracting private capital into declining urban areas? Will the Government use a similar incentive to attract much-needed private investment into our inner cities?

Mr. Baker: I am not particularly attracted by the advantages of industrial revenue bonds. The Federal Government in America are now moving to withdraw them. Our grants, the UDG and derelict land grant, and the new powers that I am taking under the Bill give Ministers the instruments to assist in the regeneration of cities.

Mr. Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend study carefully the evidence of large acreages of unused and derelict land


in the hands of local authorities and the Property Services Agency, and the unused and empty dwellings in the ownership of local authorities? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that they are sold to the private sector, so that private capital can be introduced to make a profit in the inner cities?

Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good and fair point. We now have the registers of under-used and derelict land, and my predecessor and I have issued a number of directives about the disposal of that land. When there is a problem in housing and inner city regeneration, it is wrong that land should lie idle, especially land held and owned by public authorities.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in real terms, there will be no increase in financial assistance to the inner cities in the next financial year, and that he is now subordinate to an unelected member of the House of Lords regarding the development of inner city policy?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the pilot studies in eight areas, which I fully support. They are directed at unemployed young people, and he should be sufficiently broad and wise to support those initiatives. I am anxious to make as many resources available as possible. I must find ways of attracting more private sector money into the cities.

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend avoid being drawn by the Opposition into competing in seeing how much money each side can pour into the bottomless pit of the inner cities? Does he agree that pouring more public money into the inner cities will not solve the problem?

Mr. Baker: It depends on how it is spent and how it is used. If the money is spent on the regeneration of workshop units, on regenerating old houses and warehouses, and on bringing life back to the cities, I believe that it will be money well spent.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations about the 1986–87 grant settlement he has received from non-metropolitan county councils since the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 was approved in January.

Mr. Waldegrave: I met a deputation from Cumbria county council on 29 January and my hon. Friend met a deputation from Derbyshire county council on 6 February. In addition, we have received written representations from a number of shire counties since the settlement was approved.

Mr. Thorne: In a speech in December 1985 the Secretary of State referred to an expectation of 9·5 per cent. rate increases. From the first batch of Tory councils to announce increases, Buckinghamshire proposes 30 per cent. and Lincolnshire and Norfolk 22 per cent. Does that mean that they are chronic overspenders?

Mr. Waldegrave: Proposed rate increases in several shire counties are higher than we would have hoped—none is higher than in my own county of Avon, which is Labour-controlled —because there have been real increases in expenditure, which were no part of the Government's plans.

Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of those making representations welcome the decision to allocate more funds to the inner cities? Why was no attempt made to find offset savings from other Departments, rather than from the shire counties?

Mr. Waldegrave: The decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to take about the allocation of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money were difficult, as they always are. It was thought right to respond to the concerns expressed in the House.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that some Conservative county councils will follow Conservative-controlled Sefton metropolitan district council, which intends to do a "Liverpool"? They are contemplating an illegal budget—underbudgeting in Sefton by £2 million —on the assumption that they might receive extra rate support grant during the financial year from money clawed back from overspending councils, which the Secretary of State can redistribute. Will he condemn that act of illegality by Conservative councils?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to distinguish between the behaviour of Sefton and Liverpool councils, there is nothing that I can do to unconfuse him. It is perfectly right for a council to make a reasonable review of its reserves and revenues and to budget legally within them.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that one result of the many representations that he has received about the current rate support grant will be the long-awaited and much-promised fairer deal next year for responsible shire counties?

Mr. Waldegrave: The outcome is always dependent upon the total provision and the total rate support grant percentage. Although I know that many of my hon. Friends find it difficult to accept, within those constraints several steps were taken to help the lower spending authorities.

Mr. Straw: As almost every one of the 29 shire authorities which have raised their rates by almost 20 per cent. is still proposing to spend below the standard of need set by the Government, why does the Minister not have the guts to admit that rates are rocketing in Conservative and Labour areas because of cuts in the rate support grant and not because of increases in expenditure? In the light of those figures, how can the Minister justify the wild claim made by the Secretary of State on 18 December that rate increases would be only 7·5 to 8 per cent., when increases of more than 20 per cent. were predicted, and were predictable?

Mr. Waldegrave: The, hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to make that allegation stick on my right hon. Friend, who is a most sober citizen. The fact—I have the figures in front of me—is that in many authorities where the rate increases are more than we would have wished, including Gloucestershire and Essex, there were real increases in spending, which were never part of the Government's plans.

Rating Reform

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the establishment of an accurate register for the proposed community charge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have so far received a small number of representations covering a range of issues in response to the recently published Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", but it is far too early to draw any conclusions from these.

Mr. Marlow: As both the electoral register and the community charge register will be available for public scrutiny, would it not be sensible and save a lot of bureaucracy if the information for both those registers were collected on the same form? Will my hon. Friend lay to rest the ridiculous red herring that the community charge is a tax on voting, because whether or not someone has paid the tax will have no effect on the right to vote?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The community charge is intended to be a charge for local services, not a charge on voting. It would be better to have separate registers, so that we can register those who would not necessarily be eligible for voting, but who would be eligible to pay the community charge.

Mr. Hardy: Have not the representations made the point that, in addition to the unnecessary bureaucratic cost, the vast majority of people will be worse off and that those who will gain the greatest benefit will be those who live in the biggest houses?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The people who will gain most from the community charge will be the single who live alone. That represents many of the worst off in our community.

Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend not worried that the scheme may involve considerable administrative costs for local authorities, whether or not it leads to an increase in overtime?

Mrs. Rumbold: The community charge is likely to cause a small increase in administration, but we believe that the system will be so infinitely preferable to the present system that the additional cost will be well worth it.

Mr. Straw: Why will the Minister not at least listen to the anxiety expressed by the Home Office, that using the electoral register will seriously damage the integrity of that register and will be seen, especially by low-income families, as a disincentive to exercise the right to vote? If the Minister is determined to continue with the idea of a poll tax, will she at least recognise the overwhelming need to have entirely separate registers?

Mrs. Rumbold: Indeed, I do, and that is precisely what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There will be a separate register for the community charge, which I must repeat is not a poll tax. It is a charge for local services, to be paid by those who use local services.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed community charge would have a sobering effect on councils such as the city of Leicester, which, after an advantageous rate support grant settlement, is gleefully proclaiming that it will increase rates by 80 per cent.?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The great advantage of the community charge is that there will be a direct link of accountability, wholly perceptible

and transparent to the voters. That will be of immense advantage to those who live in an area. The idea of an 80 per cent. increase is disgraceful.

Manchester (Vacant Housing)

Mr. Litherland: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial support to assist Manchester city council in purchasing vacant housing on private estates which building societies and private builders are unable to sell; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: It is for Manchester city council to decide its spending priorities. If it wishes to buy private sector houses to resell for owner-occupation, either outright or under shared ownership terms, it is welcome to do so.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that many young people who were forced into buying in the private sector because of the scarcity of rented accommodation are now abandoning their homes because they cannot meet their mortgage commitments? In one estate in Manchester, Central, 17 of 42 houses built two years ago are empty and vandalised. Does that not prove that the Tories have no housing policy? It is a scandal. The Government should provide the finance so that the county council can acquire those properties.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that one of the reasons for such houses falling into that state is the high rate levels levied by Manchester city council. I have correspondence in the Department from residents of Manchester who say that high rate rises are driving owner-occupiers out of their homes.

Mr. Sumberg: If my hon. Friend is minded to consider this matter, will he make it conditional on its application to areas wholly within the city of Manchester, bearing in mind that the leader of Manchester city council demanded the incorporation in that city of the Prestwich and Whitefield parts of my constituency? That demand is rejected and resented by the people who live there, because they do not wish to pay the high rates and have the extravagant services which Mancunians have to bear under the Labour party.

Mr. Patten: I can well understand why the constituents in those parts of my hon. Friend's constituency dread the possibility of coming under Manchester city council. I cannot understand why that council, when it is offered Government money, as I have offered, to conduct a proper study into housing conditions in the Hulme estate does not choose to take it and help its ratepayers.

"Faith in the City"

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans for further meetings with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of his commission on the subject of the report "Faith in the City"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: When I met the Archbishop of Canterbury on 28 January I offered the assistance of my Department in following up his commission's work on the assessment of need in urban areas. We also agreed to look at the potential for joint initiatives involving Government programmes and the proposed Church urban fund.

Mr. Hughes: Given the announcement in another place on Monday by Lord Skelmersdale that the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor's committee that law centres should be funded is not to be taken up by the Government, and given that the worst crisis will come in the metropolitan counties and Greater London during the coming year because of their abolition, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he accepts the Archbishop's commission's recommendations that the law centres should be funded? If they cannot be funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department, will his Department look sympathetically at their funding next year?

Mr. Baker: The spokesman for the Liberal party is asking yet again for more expenditure in the inner cities. The Liberal party also asks for more spending in the shires, the rural districts and the suburbs. How is all this Liberal largesse to be funded? Where is the money to come from? The hon. Gentleman would he infinitely more credible if he set out how we are to fund all the special interest groups which the Liberal party promises to support. The Liberal party comes to the House and weeps and wrings its hands over every special interest group, but where is the money to come from?

Mr. Lilley: When my right hon. Friend met the Archbishop, did he draw to his attention the excellent comment on the Archbishop's report by the Chief Rabbi? In particular, did he draw to the Archbishop's attention the comment by the Chief Rabbi that in the Archbishop's report Christian charity was roughly balanced by a measure of blatant political bias?

Mr. Baker: I have read the document from the Chief Rabbi entitled, "From Doom to Hope", and I was so impressed with it that I asked the Chief Rabbi to meet me to discuss it. Some of the sentiments expressed are plain speaking and good. One of them reads:
A Jewish religious contribution would lay greater emphasis on building up self respect by encouraging ambition and enterprise … let them [parents] encourage ambition and excellence in every negro child as Jewish parents encourage in their children and they will pull down their ghetto walls as surely as we demolished ours.

Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked carefully at the housing proposals in the commission's report? If so, what is the right hon. Gentleman's response? Will we get a real response, or will we get the usual guff that we had from the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister the other night on television?

Mr. Baker: During my meeting with the Archbishop, we discussed that matter. The commission intends to develop a form of neighbourhood partnership that will be directed towards housing, among other things. I am also holding discussions with various large financial institutions on ways in which they can help to deal with the housing problems in our cities and towns.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one hope for the inner cities is the idea of a task force, on the lines of the Liverpool task force? Does he further agree that £8 million for the new task forces can be only a beginning if we are to have effective leverage to draw in private money? Which Minister will be responsible for the Leeds and northern task forces?

Mr. Baker: The task forces will cover a population of only 300,000. We will have to see how they get on. I am optimistic that they will show results in a short time. They

are especially directed towards dealing with the problems of young unemployed people, especially from ethnic minorities, in the inner cities.
There are several instruments to hand—the new urban renewal grant, which can bring in money, and the other grants to which I have already referred. We must find ways to attract more private sector development and finance into the inner cities. The public sector must act as a catalyst for that.

Dr. Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that local authorities are, and will remain, a major and significant force to tackle the problems of the inner cities? Given that, is it not a humiliation for the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues to have been elbowed aside from that responsibility, which has now been given to the Department of Employment?
How can the people of Britain's inner cities be sanguine, or even hopeful, about the Government's policies when, in the words of the Audit Commission, they have resulted in a 20 per cent. cut in real terms in the resources available to tackle the problems? Is £8 million not peanuts when set beside the scale of those cuts? Does it not all add up to the fact that while this Government and their policies remain, the problems of Britain's inner cities will continue to mount?

Mr. Baker: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. While we have been in office the urban programme has increased from below £100 million to more than £300 million. We have introduced a variety of grants, and we are introducing another this year, to help with the problems.
We must marshall all the resources available from the public sector, and that is the purpose of the pilot studies in the inner cities. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give them a little more welcome. The studies were welcomed by his hon. Friends, so why can he not welcome them?

Hackney Black People's Association

Mr. Ottaway: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Hackney Black People's Association.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I believe that most of the funding for Hackney Black People's Association comes from the GLC and Hackney borough council. In 1985–86 those two authorities are providing nearly £30,000 for an advice and information centre and for Afro-Caribbean arts and cultural activities. The association also manages a youth communications project, which has received support from the Hackney inner area programme amounting to £21,300 this year. This project aims to develop the communication skills of young unemployed black people and to improve their employment prospects.

Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hackney Black People's Association recently offered a platform to Mr. Louis Farrakhan, the anti-semitic admirer of Adolf Hitler? Is that a proper use of GLC funds?

Sir George Young: I was amazed that an association which purports to foster good race relations issued an invitation to someone who is notorious for his anti-semitic views. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary refused him admission.

Mr. Sedgemore: Does the Minister accept that most hon. Members deplore the anti-semitic views of Mr. Farrakhan, with his disgusting references to God's ovens, just as they deplore the attempts by the hon. Member for Northampton, North to bad mouth the Hackney Black People's Association and to act in a fashion that is calculated, if not designed, to incite racial hatred in Hackney? Does the Minister accept that all we ask for in Hackney is equivalent treatment with the people in the City of London down the road? When will we get that?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) is an influential person, but I should be very surprised if his question this afternoon were to raise the temperature in Hackney.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to me, when he meant another hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after Question Time.

Housing Stock

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current level of investment in improving the quality of the existing housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The primary responsibility for deciding how much should be spent on improving the housing stock rests with the owners.

Mr. Hicks: At a time when over 200,000 building trade workers are unemployed, when almost 4 million houses are classified as substandard in some way, and when there are lengthy waiting lists for home improvement grants, including 2,000 in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is both economic stupidity and political folly not to embark upon a major home improvement investment programme in this labour-intensive activity, similar to what we had three years ago?

Mr. Baker: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I remind him that provision for local authority housing capital expenditure next year, 1986–87, is £2,532 million, which is some 9 per cent. up on this year, and that local authorities and new town development corporations are spending about £2·5 billion a year on maintaining and modernising their stock.

Mr. Rooker: Is not the outturn this year higher than the planned expenditure? Is it not the case that even the Government's modest increase is less than the outturn, so that there is a cut? Should it not be the aim of any Government committed to decent housing for all the people to make sure that there is enough investment, from whatever sources, to improve and maintain the housing stock at a rate at least equal to the rate of deterioration? Why do the Government not have that as their aim?

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do have that as our aim. Spending on repairs and improvement to private housing stock is running at a massive £9 billion a year. While we have been in office we have paid out some £2·5 billion in grants to the private sector. This year the amount is likely to be £500 million.

Football (Crowd Behaviour)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he next meets the secretary of the Football Association, he will raise with him the measures being taken by the football authorities to regulate the numbers and conduct of persons travelling to other countries in connection with football matches; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tracey: Yes. These matters are covered by the European convention agreed last year, following a United Kingdom initiative, and require co-operation between Governments and football authorities. We are considering particular steps needed for the World Cup in Mexico and the European Nations Cup.

Mr. Janner: When considering the problems of people travelling to and in foreign countries on football business, will the Minister please consider the tragic death of my constituent, Mr. Jim Grey, a football coach teaching in Saudi who was knocked down and killed by a vehicle? Will he consider the deplorable lack of advance in any prospect of his widow, receiving compensation? Will he please consult the Football Association and the Foreign and Commonwealth office to see what can be done to help that lady?

Mr. Tracey: We have great sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent. After considerable efforts with the Saudi authorities, the Football Association's general secretary has sought our advice. It is primarily a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is considering what advice and help it can give.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Why is it that the proper game of football, namely, rugby union, can be played between England and Scotland in the Calcutta Cup without problems—that is, apart from England losing—yet soccer causes so many problems?

Mr. Tracey: I am not sure that in the context of the original question travel between England and Scotland is travel between foreign places, but I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Bison System Flats

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria upon which he grants local authorities loan sanction in respect of the demolition of multi-storey Bison system flats.

Sir George Young: Local authorities do not need loan sanction for the demolition of housing which they own. However, they may now apply to continue to receive housing subsidy in relation to the original costs of such housing. Such applications should be made before deciding to demolish, and my right hon. Friend will agree to them only if he is satisfied that the alternatives to demolition have been fully assessed, including disposal to the private sector.

Mr. Brown: The Minister well knows that local authorities need the subsidy. Is he not making up his policy as he goes along? Why is he condemning people to live in these terrible dwellings? In particular, how can he justify allowing Newcastle city council to demolish, with subsidy, three of the four Bison flats in my constituency, and not allow the demolition of the fourth?

Sir George Young: We have allowed subsidy to continue on two blocks—Crescent and Parade Houses—and the application for a third block is before us now. The reason why there is a problem with the fourth block is that it has already been demolished.

Marine Nature Reserve

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on progress being made to establish the first marine nature reserve.

Mr. Waldegrave: Good progress is being made at Lundy. The Nature Conservancy Council hopes to go out to consultation in the spring and put formal proposals to my right hon. Friend in the summer.

Mr. Carlisle: I respect my hon. Friend's efforts to achieve voluntary agreement for the first marine nature

reserve, but it is now more than four years since the Wildlife and Countryside Act gave us the obligation to establish such reserves. If voluntary agreement for a marine nature reserve is not reached in the very near future, will my hon. Friend ensure that Parliament takes powers so that the Government can impose the first reserve?

Mr. Waldegrave: I gave a pledge—to my hon. Friend, I believe—that we must have a reserve within 12 to 18 months of a commitment that I made some time ago. We are still within that time scale, but we are watching the situation very closely, because no further slippage would be tolerable.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Skinner: So long as I can make it before the Minister of State leaves the Chamber.

British Leyland Subsidiaries

Mr. John Smith: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the disposal of British Leyland subsidiaries in the light of the deadline on negotiations announced by the Government.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): As I told the House on Monday, other proposals for the future of the Land Rover, Freight Rover and Leyland Trucks businesses, which are the subject of current discussions between BL and GM, would be considered on their commercial merits. I named those who were willing to have their interests made public. Since then there has been no material change in the position.
As I said on Monday, it is in the interests of all concerned in the industry that these negotiations should come to a successful end as soon as they conceivably can so that damaging uncertainty can be removed. Accordingly, those companies indicating an interest in one or more of these businesses have been asked by the BL board to indicate by 4 March whether they have a firm intention to make an offer.

Mr. Smith: When the Secretary of State made his statement on Monday 17 February, why did he not tell the House about the deadline of Tuesday 4 March and also about the deadline requiring those wishing to meet BL senior management to do so before 28 February? I understand that the Secretary of State gave information about this to the lobby yesterday evening. Given that a letter was sent by Hill Samuel, apparently acting on behalf of the Government, informing interested parties of those deadlines on 14 February—three days before the right hon. Gentleman's last statement to the House—why did not the Secretary of State tell the House of Commons that those deadlines had been set?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the interested parties—General Motors—has been having secret discussions for the past nine months? In those circumstances, why has such a sharp deadline been set for the others? Does this mean that the Government are merely going through the motions in respect of other intending purchasers? When, if at all, is it proposed to consult the representatives of the thousands of employees whose livelihood is entirely connected with the future of British Leyland subsidiaries?
As the Secretary of State apparently confirmed to the lobby yesterday evening, it seems that there are now six named bidders for Land Rover. Has it occurred to the Government that it might be wise to keep that company rather than sell it as everyone else seems so interested in acquiring it?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that he told the lobby yesterday that if the General Motors proposal went ahead it would probably require a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will he clarify that point, which was put to the lobby but has never been discussed in the House?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what the Minister of State said last night? When asked whether there would be an Adjournment debate on this, the Minister of State replied that the House of Commons was

sovereign. Does that mean that there will be a full parliamentary debate on the whole issue before any deal is struck?

Mr. Channon: As for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I did not say that to the lobby. [Interruption.] I did not mention the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
As for consultation with the work force— [Interruption.] I have never mentioned the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As to the work force, the BL board told me that it intends to communicate with the work force at once, or as soon as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] That is a matter for the board, but I think at once.
As for secret discussions with General Motors, I do not think that anybody can say that they were very secret. The discussions have been going on for quite a long time, as I have explained to the House many times. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"]
As for the so-called deadline, I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had at least this in common with the Government—we must come to a conclusion about these matters in the reasonably near future. Surely any responsible hon. Member on either side of the House, whatever his views about the future of those companies, should wish for a conclusion at a very early date. That is why I think it is right for the BL board to do as it has—to say that, by 4 March, other businesses should have a firm intention to make an offer. I hope that they will then be appraised during March and that we shall be able to come to conclusions soon.

Mr. Steve Norris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us agree entirely with him that, in the interests of those who work in the company, we should bring any negotiations to a conclusion as speedily as possible? Does he further agree that it is damaging to the work force to see all of these negotiations, at the instigation of the Opposition, conducted in public to their detriment?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. We must try to act in the interests of people in those companies and to reach a sensible conclusion rather than make party political capital.

Mr. Terry Davis: Why are the merchant bankers Hill Samuel involved in these discussions? Who appointed them? Is there any connection with the fact that a director of BL is also a director of Hill Samuel? Is this another example of the City of London taking an opportunity to feather its nest at the expense of British industry?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is talking hysterical nonsense. The British Leyland board, like other companies in these circumstances, has its own merchant bankers, and Hill Samuel happens to be the merchant bank acting for it.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better to reach the right decision more slowly than the wrong decision more quickly? Will he bear in mind that in Britain's negotiations with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors there have been promises and assurances but very little compliance with either?

Mr. Channon: I want to come to the right conclusion in reasonably quick time because I believe that that is essential in the interests of the companies concerned and of all of those who work in them and want them to succeed in the future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred to the letter of 14 February. Why did not the Secretary of State tell the House of Commons about the deadline?

Mr. Channon: I have not seen the letter of 14 February. [Interruption.] Nor is it in any way surprising that that should be the case. Hill Samuel is the merchant banker to the BL board, not to me.

Mr. Alex Fletcher: Will British bidders be given a reasonable time scale in which to submit their bids? Should not Ministers give preference to British bidders quite unashamedly, not because we are anti-American—far from it—but because the assurance of British ownership should be more acceptable to the Government than assurances from overseas owners, no matter how prestigious they may be?

Mr. Channon: I can assure my hon. Friend, as I have done on many occasions, that we shall give serious consideration to any bids. No bids have so far been received.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Secretary of State recognise that both sides of the House want a clear assurance that it is the policy of the Government that British Leyland should remain British Leyland and that it should not become American Leyland? Therefore, as a matter of policy, should not preference be given to those bids that come from other British companies? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this decision cannot be left to the BL board itself as national assets are involved?

Mr. Channon: The Government's policy is to have the best solution for these companies, whether it be American or British. I am far more concerned with the need to achieve a proper future for these companies, and that, I suggest, is what any responsible hon. Member should be working towards.

Mr. Hal Miller: In the face of all this synthetic indignation, does my right hon. Friend accept that ever since the Government announced their intention to privatise British Leyland it has been quite plain that bids were open for any part of British Leyland? In view of the Opposition's belated and mischevious attempt to make political capital out of this and to cause further delay and uncertainty among all those who supply truck and bus and Land Rover, who work in the company and who sell the product, surely there is a need for an early and decisive conclusion to this matter?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that that is the general wish in the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State is giving the impression that he is not answering the question that has been put to him three times by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and two of my other hon. Friends. Was he aware of the letter sent by Hill Samuel, whether he read

it or not? Was he aware of the deadline? If he was, why was the House not told of it when he made his statement on Monday?

Mr. Channon: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question a moment ago. I have given the House the fullest information in my possession, and I have answered any questions that the House has put to me; I shall go on doing so. During the past two weeks there has been a private notice question on 3 February, a debate on 5 February, a statement on 6 February, questions on 12 February, a private notice question on 17 February, a debate on 18 February, and another private notice question on 19 February. The idea that hon. Members have not had the chance to question me is ridiculous.

Mr. David Madel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any arrangement between General Motors and Leyland Trucks will not succeed unless the management and unions in those firms are able to agree the details? As neither the management at plant level nor the unions yet know the details of any proposal, what is the point of constantly raising the matter in this House? Neither the work force nor management have yet had any firm proposals on which to negotiate.

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows, at the present stage no bids have been received from any quarter for these companies. We must try to get to a situation where sensible decisions can be taken, but negotiating in public, as the Opposition would clearly like to do, is very damaging for the future of the companies concerned.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that, whatever happens in the end, Japanese Isuzu diesel engines will not be fitted to Land Rover or Range Rover?

Mr. Channon: When I last spoke in a debate such as this, I said that satisfactory assurances would have to be obtained before I could recommend any deal to the House.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept, and take note of, the virtues of management buy-outs with worker participation, such as in the National Freight Consortium? Will he consider the application of such a scheme to the future of Land Rover, and will he consider it consistent with wider ownership of shares, which our party has always advocated?

Mr. Channon: As I told my hon. Friend on another occasion, if a serious proposal comes forward. it will be considered.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: If the right hon. Gentleman knew of the deadline set out in the letter of 14 February, why did he not previously tell the House of its existence?

Mr. Channon: I have set no deadline—4 March is simply the date by which BL expects alternative interested parties to declare a firm intention of making an offer. That seems to be wholly reasonable. I have kept nothing from the House.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has always been the inviolate rule of British Leyland to tell the work force before anybody else what is going on that affects its interest? Does he agree that those of us who have a real interest in the work force, those of us who have a constituency interest as I do,


as the Member for Leyland, find the activities of the Labour party, supported by those who will jump on any bandwagon, scurrilous and disgraceful and worrying the work force even more than it is now?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As there has been considerable speculation about the fact that General Motors will not purchase other parts of BL unless Land Rover is included, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Land Rover part of the deal can be disentangled from the General Motors bid, and that a purchaser from Britain can make a serious offer for it?

Mr. Channon: Any proposal will be looked at on its merits. I understand that the GM board wishes to buy both companies or neither, but, as I have already tried to explain, I would never agree to a deal for Land Rover unless I were convinced that is would be in the long-term interest of Land Rover—and that with a GM deal if satisfactory assurances can be obtained and with the American outlets available—I could see a secure and good future for Land Rover.

Mr. Derek Conway: Concern about this matter comes not only from the west midlands but equally from my constituency, where several hundred jobs are involved. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we should prefer to see a longer negotiating time scale if that meant that a British bid could be acceptable? I accept that it is difficult to conduct negotiations via the House, but I hope that, before the lobby, the House of Commons will have a say as to where a nationalised industry which should remain British goes.

Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be time for any serious bid from any source to be considered. No bids have yet been seen. There have been some declarations of interest in the companies concerned. I agree that bidding companies must be given an opportunity to make their proposals. I believe that what the BL board proposes is adequate.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the widespread doubt and uncertainty has largely been created by his own inept and incompetent performance? Will he acknowledge that this is not just a question of Leyland, and if there is any reduction in production by BL it will have a major impact on the Pilkington factory in St. Helens, which is a major supplier of glass to the industry? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Channon: I shall bear that in mind. I reject the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Some of the major component suppliers to this industry, and I have permission to quote Guest Keen and Nettlefolds —[Interruption.] So hon. Members wish to laugh at the.

components manufacturers. GKN has said that, subject to satisfactory assurances, the Bedford-Leyland merger and the GM ownership of Land Rover would be desirable from the United Kingdom point of view.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us agree that this virtually daily questioning is not helpful to solving the problem? But will he also bear in mind that it underlines not just the wishes of the House but the fact that the people of this nation wish to see not an American dream come true to control our motor industry but a British dream come true— a viable British alternative to the problem? Carelessly and quickly selling out is like marriage, which is meant to be for ever; and once one has sold out it is for ever. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that before he sells out to General Motors he gives the British people a genuine chance to control their destiny?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has made his views clear on many occasions and I respect them. I have already assured the House that I will give a genuine chance to any serious bid that comes forward and I repeat that assurance to my hon. Friend today. I am grateful to him for what he said in the first half of his question. It is difficult for all those involved in the companies to have this daily barrage which the Opposition are clearly trying to create for party political reasons.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Is the Secretary of State aware that an official group from British Leyland came to the House yesterday to make it clear that, in its opinion, the bus and truck division, in which it has invested considerable skill and effort, must remain in public hands?

Mr. Channon: That is a view that I understand, but it has never been the Government's view, because we believe that we should privatise those industries.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had it not been for United States investment in Britain since the war our industrial base would be a great deal smaller than it is and, since a large part of that investment was sanctioned by the Labour party when it was in power, will he reject this hypocritical anti-Americanism and put the interests of the work force and the business first in any discussions that take place?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I will. American investment in Britain has been very much welcomed and there has been substantial British investment in the United States. Labour Members, with their anti-American taunts, are playing a dangerous game. They are threatening the livelihoods of thousands of people employed by American companies in Britain, including General Motors and Ford.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from written question No. 153 on today's Order Paper from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) in the answer to which the press was informed of a No. 10 briefing this morning that the Government intended once again to readjust the monthly unemployment statistics downwards.
You will recall that on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, when the Government readjusted the unemployment figures downwards on 12 November 1982, by over 200,000 it was covered by a statement to the House, and that on the second occasion, in April 1983, when the readjustment downwards was more than 350,000, it was included in a statement by the Chancellor to the House.
It is an affront to the House that the non-elected Secretary of State for Employment is not accountable to this House for his actions. Indeed, he is in contempt of the House and past practices in hiding away this further readjustment of the unemployment figures in a written reply, particularly when, in employment questions yesterday, the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment addressed himself to the question and did not answer it.
May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of rights in the House, to appeal to other quarters to see whether a statement can be made to the House tomorrow about a further fiddling down of the unemployment figures?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for answers given to written questions. The hon. Gentleman's point of order will have been heard by the Government Front Bench.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—there seems to be a curious lack of Labour Members on their feet inclined to join in on it. I believe that written answers should be given to the House. I do not approve of the practice whereby the press obtains answers before the House. I regret that that has taken place. The question has been answered by way of written answer. It is a perfectly routine answer which speaks for itself. I advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to address himself to its contents. I think that he will find that it will cause little excitement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, you said that, whenever a point of order was raised to which a Minister responded, the response would be treated as a statement. I want to make it absolutely clear before I raise my other point of order that I hope that my point of order will not prejudice the rights of my colleagues to have another crack at the Minister in calling for a statement on the unemployment figures.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is always helpful to me. I called him on a point of order. Will he please put his point of order to me?

Mr. Skinner: During Environment Questions, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government said when I called for an inquiry into Sellafield that I had not shown any interest in

contaminiation and pollution in the coal industry and associated industries. I wish to point out that the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is an old hand. He knows the rules better than most.

Mr. Skinner: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows equally well that it is not in order to continue—

Mr. Skinner: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is not in order to continue Question Time by means of a point of order. Many things are said in the House with which hon. Members disagree. The hon. Member will put his point of order to me, not to the Minister.

Mr. Skinner: It is a point of order for you. Mr. Speaker. It is well-known in the House that, when an hon. Member misleads the House about another hon. Member. it is a matter for the Speaker. The Minister said that I had not participated in any exercises against contamination, other than Sellafield. In defending this call for the Minister to withdraw that misleading statement, I point out that in 1976 I called for the closure of a plant in my constituency because Coalite Industries Ltd. was producing dioxin. The Minister in question then was working for Arnold Weinstock, and trying to get the nuclear power industry contracts. The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government has a duty to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the whole House would agree that there is no dispute about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He is an assiduous Member. There is no controversy about that.

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please help me? How can it be possible for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to ask for your ruling on how the formula for unemployment figures is calculated and for that question to be in order, yet only the other day your office advised me that I could not raise with the Chair questions about the actions of the Select Committee on Defence in exceeding the powers given to it under the Standing Orders? Your office told me that I could not raise that matter with you in relation to the conduct of the House.
It seems strange that a technical detail, such as the formula for compiling the unemployment figures, can be raised on a point of order, yet what is transparently happening in relation to certain Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the Select Committee on Defence, which are exceeding the powers laid down by Parliament in the Standing Orders, cannot be raised on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised an important point. I should like to say to the whole House that we are getting into the habit of having points of order raised virtually every day which have absolutely nothing to do with me but have to do with the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is right. When a right hon. or hon. Member gets to his feet on a point of order, I have no idea what he will say. If hon.


Members went to the Table Office for advice, they would receive exactly the same advice that the hon. Member for Harborough received.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand your concern—I am sure it is shared throughout the House—at the number of times that it has been necessary to use the facility of points of order to try to secure information which truly and genuinely should be volunteered by the Government by direct means to the House of Commons so that they can be cross-questioned. When a Government resorts to other means—press leaks, written answers or press briefings —to ensure that they are not scrutinised in the House, can you suggest any way of dealing with the matter other than by raising points of order?

Mr. Terry Davis (Brimingham, Hodge Hill): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you said recently on a similar occasion, may I ask you to rule that the comments made by the Paymaster General on a point of order were equivalent to a statement on which he can now be questioned by hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I rule in particular circumstances and, if I may put it this way to the House, I am sure the House will agree that it is a question of the context in which things are said and done. It would be an unfortunate ruling if I were to say that every time a Minister got to his feet to assist the House it became a statement. That might mean that Ministers would never get to their feet, and that would not be to the benefit of the House.

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about the third time in 12 years that I have raised a point of order in the House. Is it not an abuse of the procedures and privileges of the House for the Minister who was answering questions yesterday and was asked specifically about the subject of employment statistics not to answer that question or give the House the information when today a written answer has been given which suggests a change? Surely the Government cannot have arrived at a change of policy in 24 hours. Surely Back Benchers have rights. The Government have ignored and abused the privileges of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day, so hon. Members are taking time away from Back Benchers and the Opposition in raising points of order. I have no responsibility for answers given to questions.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this will be a constructive point of order. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), when he was asking his question, gave a rather colourful description of an hon. Member. He mentioned my constituency, implying that he was referring to me. I now understand that he did not mean my constituency. I wonder whether he could have an opportunity to put the record straight.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. Fortunately, my microphones do not always pick up the colourful descriptions.

Mr. Robert Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring to Question Time. Yesterday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, you

allowed five questions on the subject of Afghanistan. Today, in Environment Questions, you allowed two questions on housing in Manchester when quite a number of Members wanted to speak.

Mr. Speaker: That is an important point. I think that the whole House would be interested to know about it. It was a rare occasion in Prime Minister's Questions yesterday when we had a substantive question. Most of the questions to the Prime Minister are open and are basically on the same subject. I took a judgment today, and I accept that we did not get far with Environment questions. I decided that the matter of the Sellafield leak was of major interest to hon. Members and I allowed questions on it to run a little.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is using the hon. Gentleman's own time, but I will take the point of order if it is legitimate.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the statement made by the Paymaster General earlier. Am I right in understanding that the answer to a written question was given without his knowledge or consent? I see that he is nodding. Will he confirm that that is the truth? An answer to a written question was given without his consent. I see that he is nodding. That is enough.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I remember correctly, on Monday, when we had an exchange on the subject of British Leyland, you said that those hon. Members who were not called on that occasion would take precedence next time the subject was raised. I have constituents working for Austin Rover, Land Rover, Unipart, Self-Changing Gears and other parts of Leyland. I and other Labour Members did not get the chance today to raise the question of the dismissal of the senior shop steward of the Transport and General Workers Union at Land Rover, Solihull, for opposing privatisation. I wanted to bring that to your notice. I want to bring to your notice our resolute opposition to privatisation of BL, in whole or in part, with American or British capital.

Mr. Speaker: I did say that. I am sorry that I did not call the hon. Gentleman. I think that I should have done so.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 7 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Evans.
Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Mr. Geoff Lawler.

BILLS PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS)

Mrs. Ann Clwyd, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. John Marek, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Roland Boyes, and Mr. John McWilliam presented a Bill to prohibit the use of age limits in job appointments, training schemes, promotion, retirement and advertising of jobs; to make other provision relating to employment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 April and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

HIGHWAYS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael Cocks, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Daniel Knox, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Gordon Wilson, persented a Bill to amend the Highways Act 1980 so as to impose penalties in cases where a user of a highway is injured, interrupted or endangered in consequence of the lighting of a fire on the highway or elsewhere: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Amendment of the Constitution of the House of Lords (Bishops)

Mr. Richard Holt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the constitution of the House of Lords in relation to membership of bishops and to make consequential provision.
Frequently, when I am asked what is needed to be a Member of Parliament I reply, patience, a strong constitution and a loud voice. Never does that apply quite so much as when one has a ten-minute Bill. Patience in this context goes back to the year 1301, because my ten-minute Bill seeks to amend the constitution. It is sometimes thought that we do not have a written constitution and that everything is by precedent. That is very often true, but for bishops it is untrue. The place of bishops in the House of Lords is enshrined in law and has been ever since laws were validated in this country.
I was surprised to find from my researches that the number of bishops first established by Henry VIII in 1550 was 26. Today, we still have 26. After all those years, the number is the same. There have been changes, such as the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and the Irish Church, and other changes over the years, but in spite of them the number of bishops in the other place has remained constant at 26—two archbishops and 24 bishops.
The restoration Act laid down that the five senior prelates—the two archbishops, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of London arid the Bishop of Winchester—shall sit in the House of Lords as of right. All the other bishops take Buggins' turn to bring the numbers up. That was established by statute in 1847.
Why, as a Member of the House of Commons, am I seeking to alter the constitution of the House of Lords? The answer is that that is the way in which it has always been done. The Commoners have initiated the legislation, the Lords have rejected it, and ultimately the Commoners have made it law. I want to strengthen the House of Lords, and I think that one way to do that is to ensure that it reflects the more ecumenical society in which we live and is a true reflection of the nation. I also hope that in that way we would have greater integration of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It is significant that right back to Henry VIII's Act of 1550 one bishopric only was deliberately excluded—that of Sodor and Man. It is excluded because the bishop who holds that see is automatically a Member of the Manx House. That applies to no bishop other than an English one. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not the Parliament of England. It should reflect and expand in the House of Lords Church leaders' views from all parts of the country. It should not be confined merely to those in England.
There will be a rumble from people who will say, "This is the short road to disestablishing the Church." I shall remind hon. Members of the report of the Archbishop's commission, "Church and State", which was published in 1970. It said:
it is hard to define what is meant by the term 'Church as by law established'." The words … were originally used to denote the statutory prcess by which the allegiance of the Church of England … and the forms of worship and doctrines of that Church were imposed by law.
Many right hon. and hon. Members who are here today took part in the famous debate of 1974. I recommend that all hon. Members read the 100 pages of Hansard to see that the measure debated was a step down the road toward what one might call disestablishment, but it has not happened. Like the other snares and red herrings put out from time to time, it is not true. I am not seeking to disestablish anyone. I am trying to establish more people. That will be seen by what I want to introduce into the House of Lords.
The Bill seeks to phase out 12 of the 26 English anglican bishops. The best way to make progress in such matters is slowly, patiently and by negotiation. The law has been around for 355 years, and I do not seek to change it in 10 minutes. Why should I?
I shall go back to the beginning and show why there are any bishops at all in the House of Lords. They are there because King Edward I in 1300 could not read or write and someone had to take the minutes. They put bishops in, and the bishops have been there ever since.
I want the bishops in the House of Lords to reflect society. I seek to introduce there the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Archbishop of the Church of Wales, who was shamefully disestablished in 1920 by Lloyd George for political purposes, the Primate of All Ireland and Bishop of Armagh, and the four Catholic cardinals, archbishops or bishops, as appropriate of Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Armagh, the Methodist Chairman or his nominee and the Chief Rabbi.
I may be criticised for not extending the list to other religions and forms of worship. I am deliberately reducing the numbers by 12 and introducing nine to allow additional people to be put forward for nomination in the fulness of time.
I shall give some of the statistical evidence on various forms of church worship today. In part, the statistics lie behind my thinking. The statistics have been supplied by

the House of Commons Library. The best measure that it has is the number of communicants. The Church of England had 1·9 million in 1900 and has 1·5 million today. The Church of Scotland had 1·1 million and now has 900,000. There were 1·9 million Catholics in 1900 and 5 million today. There were 770,000 Methodists and there are now 451,000, and there are 350,000 Jews. Religions without a clear leader do not deserve to be considered, but I do not exclude them. I am trying to introduce harmony, not discord. I am trying to see that in the other place more people bring thoughts and words like those of the Chief Rabbi to parliamentary debates.
I should like to think that everyone, irrespective of the immediate reaction, would like to think about this proposal, because if it saved one life in Northern Ireland it would be a measure well worth introducing.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Robert Key, Sir John Stradling Thomas, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Michael Stern, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Michael J. Martin and Mr. Albert McQuarrie.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS (BISHOPS)

Mr. Richard Holt accordingly presented a Bill to amend the constitution of the House of Lords in relation to membership of bishops and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 May and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986.

Opposition Day

[8th Allotted Day]

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As we are running somewhat late and as there are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, may I call for short speeches.

Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move,
That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's support for the Strategic Defence Initiative.
In some ways the strategic defence initiative is probably the most important issue in the field of foreign and defence policy, disarmament and high technology that the House has discussed for many years. Its supporters and opponents will at least agree on that.
On 23 March 1983, President Reagan made a speech in which he asked for a fundamental change in the basic policy upon which western security has been built since the second world war. He made this speech without any consultation with any of his allies, although NATO's nuclear planning group was meeting at that time. He said that the
human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations by threatening their existence … peace could not rest much longer on the threat of mutual suicide.
The President dedicated himself to produce a defence against nuclear ballistic missiles which would make:
nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
Later in Baltimore, he told schoolchildren that "the hand of providence" inspired that speech.
The President never explained how ballistic missile defence would protect the world against nuclear bombs which were carried on aircraft, such as those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by cruise missiles, by individuals or in the hold of ships. He never explained how abolishing nuclear weapons would control conventional forces, which in an all-out war could inflict horrific damage, or how he could achieve any of his objectives without reducing the political tensions that have been the cause of the arms race. However, we can all agree that at least it was a noble vision, which has been endorsed by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
The strategic defence initiative that we are now discussing is very different from what President Reagan proposed nearly three years ago. The American Administration now say that the purpose of research is not to replace nuclear deterrence but to enhance it—to make the mutual suicide pact even more binding than it is today, and to threaten the survival of other nations more effectively. It is already clear that the Administration's aim for the next 30 years at least will be to protect not the peoples of the world, but American land-based missiles, which are one of the components in America's strategic nuclear triad.
For the foreseeable future,
the official American apologia for SDI now recounts,
offensive nuclear forces, and the prospect of nuclear retaliation will remain the key element of deterrence.
Therefore, simultaneously with SDI, the United States Government are beginning to deploy a whole arsenal of

new strategic nuclear weapons—the MX missile, the D5 submarine-launched missile and the Midgetman mobile missile. They foresee an immense increase in funding for research and development into what they call advanced strategic missile systems, which are a new arsenal of weapons that will enter service in the late 1990s when the first strategic defence is planned to be available. That must mean a stupendous acceleration of the arms race, greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war and making disarmament more difficult.
Indeed, the case against the President's present proposals was made most eloquently by the President in his original speech when he said:
If defensive systems were paired with offensive systems they could be regarded as fostering an aggressive policy, and nobody really wants that.
The point that the combination of defence and offensive forces would appear to increase the possibility of a first strike against an enemy was repeated by him in his interview with Soviet journalists only last October, when he pointed out that it would make a first strike more feasible. The point was put most dramatically by ex-President Nixon when he said of the SDI:
Such systems would be destabilising if they provided a shield so that you could use the sword.
That is the basic case against the attempt to produce a ballistic missile defence, which is the purpose of the SDI.
It is not surprising that the SDI has been opposed in a somewhat coded way, not only by our Foreign Secretary in his remarkable speech in the middle of last year, for which I paid him tribute, but by two of the past three American Presidents—Presidents Carter and Ford—three of the past four American Defence Secretaries —Secretaries Brown, Schlesinger and McNamara—and all six of the surviving American Defence Secretaries who are opposed to breaking the ABM treaty, which would be necessary if a star wars system were to be deployed.
Faced with that threat which, to use President Reagan's words, could make a first strike by the United States more likely, it is not surprising that the Soviet Government have made it clear that they will not sit on their hands. If SDI proceeds, they will increase the number of offensive missiles in the hope of swamping American defences, as the United Stated did by introducing multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles when the Russians first began deploying ballistic missile defences in the late 1960s, and, as Secretary Schlesinger, in a powerful. article attacking SDI, pointed out, as any Western Government would do in similar circumstances. Indeed, the Chevaline programme, which was introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 1970s, was introduced as a response to the Soviet deployment of an ABM system around Moscow.
That is not the only Soviet reponse. The Soviet Government will also seek to develop weapons which would either put the American space-based system out of action—the most likely weapon for that would be some sort of space bomb which would circle the world permanently—or make the system ineffective, for example by introducing fast burn into their intercontinental missiles so that the boost phase, which is the first target of the American system, would be reduced from five minutes to 50 seconds, and would take place entirely in the atmosphere, which it is much more difficult for the


proposed American laser weapons to penetrate. Finally, the Russians have made it clear that they would plan to develop their own space-based defensive systems.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. But he has not mentioned the time scale for the development of the SDI by the Americans.

Mr. Healey: From discussions with General Abrahamson and others I understand that the Americans hope to start deploying some sort of ballistic missile defence within about 10 years, although the first system may be based on land rather than in space. The fact that the Americans are known to be researching into such systems makes it sensible for the Russians to start preparing against them now, just as western countries, faced with the possibility of Soviet systems, immediately started taking action either to swamp them or copy them.

Mr. James Couchman: rose—

Sir Antony Buck: rose—

Mr. Healey: I shall give way from time to time, but I do not wish to conduct a seminar. I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, will note the anxiety of hon. Members to speak.
American official sources have made it clear that in the next 10 years, if the arms race proceeds, the Soviet Union will be able to increase the number of its missiles much faster than the United States simply by keeping existing production lines open. Indeed, it could increase the number of its warheads from about 9,000 to 30,000 within 10 years, especially if the United States abandons the SALT II agreement, which would restrict the number of missiles, as the American Defence Department has asked the President to do.
Even that is not the full horror of the prospect before us. The United States has now admitted that it is examining the possibility of putting nuclear weapons into orbit to use as pumps for X-ray lasers. It has already carried out many tests for that purpose on its testing grounds in Nevada. It is already exploring nuclear weapons as an element in its SDI, although earlier it always said that the SDI would be an entirely conventional system.
We must never lose sight of the fact that the technologies that are now under examination could be used for offensive as well as defensive purposes. In response to papers produced by several American university teams, a spokesman for the American strategic defence initiative has already admitted that any laser weapon powerful enough to destroy a missile in the atmosphere could, with some redesigning, be used to incinerate a city. Even the non-nuclear lasers contemplated by the United States could produce climatic effects as horrific and catastrophic to humanity as the nuclear winter—a concept with which people are now becoming familiar.
Faced with that terrifying prospect, any European Government should be using all their efforts to stop the arms race from entering that new phase while there is still time. Despite the publicly expressed hostility of the French Government to the SDI, and despite the deep and public divisions in the German Government about the SDI, the

British Prime Minister decided to jump the gun on all her European allies and not only to endorse the programme but to offer to put British scientists at its disposal.
The Prime Minister sought to justify that sell-out by two arguments. First, she told us that the President gave her satisfactory undertakings at their meeting in December 1984 on the deployment of a space-based system. The second argument was that it was impossible to monitor an agreement to ban research into such a system. However, it is already clear that the American Administration have not the slightest intention of honouring three out of the four undertakings that they gave to the Prime Minister in Washington 14 months ago.
The first condition was that America would seek not to achieve superiority but to maintain the balance of strategic forces. On 1 February 1984, Secretary Weinberger told Congress:
If we get a system … which we know can render their weapons impotent, we would be back in a situation we were in, for example, when we were the only nation with the nuclear weapon.
He considered SDI as effectively giving the United States the monopoly that it had in 1945. That is not maintaining a balance in strategic forces.
Secondly, the President undertook that the deployment of a system related to the SDI— in view of the obligations that America accepted under the ABM treaty —would have to be a matter for negotiation with the Soviet Government as a fellow signatory of the ABM treaty, and with America's allies. President Reagan was clear about the matter. On 6 November last year, in answer to questions, he said that if Russia did not agree to amend the ABM treaty to permit the deployment of a space-based defence system, he would go ahead and deploy it anyway. When asked by journalists whether he would permit the Soviet Government a veto on deployment, he said, "Hell, no."
Mr. Weinberger made the same point in less colourful language. A year ago he stated:
I am ruling out the possibility of giving up on strategic defence, either in the research stage or if it becomes feasible in the deployment stage.
He refused to give up the possibility of deploying SDI under any circumstances if it proved feasible.
As the House will recall, it was that refusal even to consider negotiations that blocked all progress at the recent Geneva summit on disarmament of strategic nuclear forces. That in turn makes nonsense of the fourth undertaking, that East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
Both sides are now planning to increase greatly the number of their offensive systems and to increase new types of defensive weapons. There is no chance of progress on strategic nuclear disarmament unless the United States is prepared to negotiate about the abandonment of the strategic defence initiative. The tragedy is that that has become clear just at the time when the new Soviet proposals for disarmament—perhaps engendered to some extent by the fear of the SDI deployment—represent major concessions in the Soviet position, not least on intermediate nuclear forces, where the Soviets have accepted the zero option, which was first put to the Russians by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and myself when we met Mr. Brezhnev in 1981. It was also put forward by President Reagan on behalf of NATO in discussions with


the Soviet Union about a year later. Since the war there has never been a time when the prospects for progress on disarmament have been more propitious. There is now a real chance of doing that to which the American and Soviet Governments committed themselves when Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko agreed a year ago to end the arms race on earth and to prevent an arms race in space.
The Prime Minister's excuse for supporting the SDI as a research programme is that it is impossible to monitor or verify a ban on research and that the Soviet Union is carrying out research into ballistic missile defence in any case. As I pointed out when we previously debated this subject during the debate on the Queen's Speech in November, although research carried on inside people's heads or inside laboratories is impossible to monitor without access to those laboratories, such research cannot go far without physical tests, or "demonstrations" as the Americans call them. Tests of components in a possible system that take place outside laboratories can be monitored by satelite photography and other means and are continuously monitored by the American and Soviet Governments at present. The Russians have at last offered to draw a distinction between research in laboratories and brains and the type of tests outside laboratories that can be monitored, without which such research cannot proceed very far.
The Americans have listed such tests as having been carried out by the Russians. They have described some of the preparations that they say the Russians are making to produce a ballistic missile defence. However, I understand that their interpretation of the Krasnoyarsk radar—their prime exhibit—is not shared by the British Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will come clean on that matter in his reply. Evidence given to the Defence Committee by some officials made it clear that we do not endorse the American interpretation of Krasnoyarsk. The Russians have agreed to dismantle the Krasnoyarsk system if Britain dismantles similar systems at Fylingdales and Thule. Many people believe that they are as contrary to the ABM system as is the Krasnoyarsk radar.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for many years for Fylingdales. Was it part of an ABM system?

Mr. Healey: No, it was not then, but the right hon. Gentleman and his Government agreed to develop Fylingdales as a phased array radar of a type very similar to that at Krasnoyarsk. That is a new development which the Russians have already claimed is contrary to the ABM treaty, on exactly the same grounds as the Americans claim that Krasnoyarsk is contrary to the treaty. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute that fact.

Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I would if the right hon. Gentleman gave me the chance. I was deeply involved in the matter. The purpose of the modernised Fylingdales is no different from the purpose over which the right hon. Gentleman presided.

Mr. Healey: That is precisely what the Russians argue about Krasnoyarsk: that its purpose is to track objects in space, not to—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would love to conduct a seminar because I know that education and instruction is widely required by Conservative Members.

Mr. John Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Healey: No, I have dealt with the question of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. The essential difference is that Fylingdales existed before the ABM treaty and Krasnoyarsk did not.

Mr. Healey: Of course Fylingdales existed before the treaty, but it is being developed in a way that is incompatible with the treaty. That is precisely the complaint made by the Soviet Government. If the right hon. Gentleman is sensitive about his complicity in the matter, and if he believes, like the Americans, that the Krasnoyarsk radar violates the treaty, let the British Government agree to the Soviet proposal to cease development at Fylingdales, Krasnoyarsk and Thule, which seem to be a perfectly sensible proposal that would not harm Western security and would relieve many people of what I believe to be legitimate anxieties.
If the West is really worried about Soviet research into ballistic missile defence or anti-satellite systems, where in some respects the Soviet Union is further advanced than the United States, it could kill those systems stone dead by accepting a ban on observable tests. None of the Government's excuses for supporting such tests hold the slightest amount of water, since they are fully capable of being monitored.
The strategic defence initiative has become the major obstacle to stopping the arms race. It is widely agreed that it would be possible with existing means to monitor a comprehensive test ban, especially since the Soviet Government have agreed to on-site inspection. But the SDI requires nuclear tests underground of X-ray laser bombs, some of which have already been carried out in Nevada. Mr. Miller, a top scientist at Livermore, has argued in public that even the non-nuclear components of the proposed SDI require testing in a nuclear environment which can be produced only by the explosion of nuclear weapons.
The tragedy is that this opportunity to stop the arms race may be the last unless we can pop this genie back in the bottle now. What must worry many hon. Members is that the major obstacle to a reduction in strategic weapons is the American attachment to the SDI, just as the major obstacle to accepting the Soviet proposal for the zero option on intermediate nuclear forces is the British Government's determination to go ahead with the Trident programme, although there is growing opposition even in the services to continuing that programme, since, as the right hon. Member for Henley will recall, one reason why our forces cannot afford helicopters produced by Westland is that, in a few years' time, 30 per cent. of the new equipment budget will be taken up by Trident.
Her Majesty's Government and the American Government together have erected a massive road block on the way to peace. All this has been compounded during the past few months by the grubby conspiracy of the British Government to encourage British scientists to leave vital British programmes of civilian research, such as the Alvey programme, and work instead on SDI research for the American Government. It is yet another sell-out to American pressure— one of vital importance to the future of British industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will deal at greater length with some problems surrounding the agreement made by the Secretary of State


for Defence, which General Abrahamson was pursuing during his recent visit to London. I hope that he will tell us a little more about the agreement, since I understand that he met General Abrahamson yesterday.
The memorandum of understanding that the Government signed with America on this matter is scarcely worth the paper on which it is written, because such memoranda can be overridden at any time by the American Congress, as Congress overrode the wartime agreement to share nuclear technology when it passed the McMahon Act, and as the Americans overrode another agreement when they cancelled the Skybolt project on which an earlier Conservative Government were relying to replace the aging V bombers. As the right hon. Member for Henley may remember, a few years ago, the Americans unilaterally broke the memorandum of understanding to produce an airfield attack weapon, the JP233. Indeed, it may have been before his time. That memorandum was signed by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) whom he has joined on the Government Back Benches. They seem to be a depository for former Defence Ministers.
But even if the memorandum of understanding is not overridden by the United States, it is vital that the House should know what its provisions are. We know only one thing about the memorandum: that the former Secretary of State completely failed in his stated objective to guarantee $1,500 million-worth of work for Britain. We must rely entirely on leaks, most of which are coming from the United States. However, some have come from the familiar source—the Department of Trade and Industry —which let it be known during the negotiation of the agreement that it was unhappy about the right hon. Gentleman's failure to obtain satisfactory assurances on intellectual property rights and on technology transfer.
Connoisseurs of British politics will be intrigued by the fact that there was what psychologists call role-reversal on that occasion. The right hon. Member for Henley was trying to sell out to the Americans, and his comrade in adversity, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was trying to protect European technology. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that circumstances alter cases, although I found his posing as a great European odd when I considered his record on the memorandum of understanding on the SDI and his position on the purchase of the Trident missile.
We have been told by leaks that the Department of Trade and Industry was immensely unhappy about the provision to enable British scientists to use the knowledge which they acquire in this research and to produce products which can be transferred to other countries in commercial sale.
No information is available to the House about the provisions. There are no military security grounds for denying the House this information, and there is every reason for its having the information. Is it the case, as one of the American leaks has claimed, that intellectual property rights and technology transfer will have to be settled case by case in company-to-company contracts, and therefore the British Government have acquired no guarantees whatever in this field which will protect British interests?
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany have said in advance— they have not yet signed the

memorandum of understanding—that they will not cough up any of their own money. One of the leaks I have read says that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide one third of the money for any Government-to-Government contracts from the British Treasury. That is a matter of immense importance to the House. Hon. Members have every reason to be told the truth, yet we are denied it.
We are also told that there are penal cancellation clauses in this agreement in an attempt to bind any future Government to implement its provisions. I am certain that any future House of Commons will demand the same right as the American Congress has often exercised, to override a memorandum of understanding about which it has been given no information whatever.
The central issue on this agreement is a general and simple one. We all know that Britain has a substantial lead over the United States in some of the new technologies, particularly those relating to fifth and sixth generation computers which, it is hoped, will have artificial intelligence and be capable of learning. It is essential—I hope the right hon. Member for Henley agrees, in the light of his recent speeches—that we should use this unique advantage in high technology to build a European base so that Europe can compete on equal terms in these areas with the United States and Japan.
We should not sell out to the United States, and particularly to American defence interests from which there will be only a small commercial spin-off, even if we are allowed under the agreement to make use of the spin-off. I noticed the other day that the assistant head of research at IBM, who can be regarded as a fairly independent authority on these matters, says that the right word is not "spin-off', but "drip-off." The amount of commercial advantage which even the Americans will get out of this diversion of research and development from civilian to military research will be small compared to the colossal resources which it is planned to invest in it.
In an earlier debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that to make these points is not to be anti-American; it is anti-British not to make them. It is time that this Government got off their hind legs and started putting Britain first. The Prime Minister and the Government as a whole have shown a feckless indifference to British interests. That has characterised the whole of their industrial policy, which we have been debating at length in recent weeks, and it threatens the very survival of the manufacturing side of our economy. Feckless indifference to the interests of peace by supporting the SDI is even more dangerous.
I ask the House to vote for the motion. At least it is one means of stopping the sell-out to American pressure which is corrupting every area of our public life, both at home and abroad.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'takes note of the extensive Soviet research effort in ballistic missile defence; agrees that the Strategic Defence Initiative research programme is prudent in the light of this effort; and welcomes the participation of United Kingdom industry and research institutions in that programme.'.
Until the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) got well into his speech I was somewhat puzzled


by the vague and indeterminate nature of the motion that he put down for today's debate. I now see that it has provided an excellent and perfect background for the splendid extravaganza with which he has delighted us, and it has given him plenty of scope to paint a colourful picture of his own that bears little relationship to the facts. Having built up that picture, he spectacularly knocked it down with one flick of his wrist.
I should prefer to spell out as clearly as I can the facts about where we start in this important debate and why the Government have taken the line they have about their particpation in the research activity associated with the SDI programme. As the House will know, the central purpose of British security policy over the last 40 years has been to maintain deterrence within a framework of stability in international relations. This basic approach has stood the test of time, and it is the approach that provides the surest road to continued peace, but on whichever side of the House we sit we must recognise that neither time nor technology will stand still.
As circumstances change, and as new technical horizons are opened, we must be ready to review the way in which we execute our basic policy and, if necessary, to make adjustments to take account of the new situations in which we find ourselves. There is nothing radical, extraordinary or new about that. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East played a valuable role, which I well remember, in the debates that resulted in the reformulation of the basic NATO strategy in the 1960s. Those debates, resulting in the policy of flexible response, reflected the fact that circumstances had changed since the 1950s when nuclear weapons had first come to play a central role in the security policies of the NATO Alliance. The Alliance properly took account of the changed situation and the strategy which emerged provided a sound basis for Alliance policy thereafter. In my view it has done so, and will continue to do so for many years to come.
The debate about the strategic defence initiative is about a further evolution in our strategic thinking to take account of changes since then, both in the scale and capability of offensive nuclear forces and in the technologies available for possible defences.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike previous systems, there is no way in which this system can be tested? What reply has the right hon. Gentleman to those at the department of artifical intelligence in Edinburgh and at Imperial college who say that, in the absence of a spare planet, this system—which involves space-controlled automatic weapons—can never be tested? That is the difference. It is not evolution at all.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that, and so, indeed, is Dr. Thompson, whom he has often quoted. Dr. Thompson has his views on the matter, but it is worth noting that after he expressed his views, Edinburgh university made it clear that they were not necessarily the views of the university, but were Dr. Thompson's personal views. I have no objection to that. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my argument as a whole, he will get an answer to the whole question of the rationale of why we have to take account of the reality of what is happening, and not the situation as we might wish it to be.
The essential question is whether defensive systems have a role to play in maintaining deterrence and ensuring

strategic stability, or whether we should continue to deter strategic nuclear attack solely by the threat of retaliation. This issue is, of course, not new. Both the USA and the USSR worked on defensive systems in the late 1960s. It became clear that the technology then available would not provide cost-effective defences against the weight of attack which the super powers could pose against each other. The right hon. Gentleman touched on that point. Both sides accepted a different twin-pronged approach—numerical constraints on offensive sytems, coupled with strict limits on defensive deployments. That resulted in the signature of the 1972 SALT I and ABM treaties. Each side relied for its security against strategic nuclear attack on the threat of retaliation from its own nuclear forces, which were themselves virtually immune from preemptive attack.
Those treaties have provided the strategic framework under which we have lived ever since. They make up the concept known as mutual assured destruction or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs more accurately and realistically described it, mutual assured deterrence. The Government attach great importance to the integrity of the SALT and ABM treaties, which marked a real achievement in an agreed approach to ensuring a stable and peaceful world.
It follows that we believe that their terms should be strictly complied with by all the parties to them. That is why we very much welcomed the US commitment to pursue its SDI research programme in accordance with a strict interpretation of the ABM treaty and not to undercut the unratified SALT II agreement as long as the Soviet Union exercised equal restraint.
It is, of course, entirely to be expected—indeed., it is all too typical—that the focus of the Opposition motion should be on the United States strategic defence initiative. We shall hear much today—we have already from the right hon. Gentleman —of how it is the United States that is upsetting the approach agreed in the 1970s. We shall, perhaps, be left with the impression from some speakers that the Soviet Union, on the other hand, has respected that approach and wants nothing to do with strategic defences. The reality is very different.
It is demonstrably not the case that the Soviet Union has eschewed the possibility of strategic defences. It was the Soviet Union that chose to make full use of the provision for the limited deployment of such systems permitted under the ABM treaty by deploying an ABM system around Moscow — a system which it is currently modernising and expanding to the extent allowed by that treaty. In the days when those on the Opposition Benches were still being really serious about defence, it was precisely that Soviet deployment that led them — responsibly and properly — to proceed with the Chevaline programme for our strategic nuclear deterrent. The right hon. Gentleman's famous memory was not quite correct today. Although it was a Conservative Government who decided to go ahead with Chevaline, it was a Labour Government who made the arrangements and allocated funding. He cannot get away from that.
Perhaps this limited ABM deployment might at first have been explained away as a hangover from the earlier Soviet R and D effort in the 1960s, but it is now being upgraded. Above all, we have to address the long-standing Soviet research programmes into the range of technologies


relevant to ballistic missile defence — lasers, particle beam and radio frequency weapons, kinetic energy weapons, surveillance and target detection and so on.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces placed in the Library on 26 November 1985 a paper on that Soviet programme, which I commend to the House and to hon. Members who have not read it. The facts that it sets out are, I believe, not in dispute. The key point is that this is not a new Soviet programme; it is not a response to the SDI— far from it, it long pre-dates it—it is not something peripheral to the Soviet effort in defence research; it is a key component of it.

Mr. Healey: Of course the Russians have been carrying out that research. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that their research experiments have been monitored by means available to the West—just as the Russians monitor ours. Therefore, a ban on observable tests would be feasible.
Has the United States not been spending money in that area, at least since 1965? It did not stop after the signing of the ABM treaty; it did not have to. Indeed, this is the first year of its research into those systems when spending has risen above the average for those years —the second year of SDI. Both sides have been pursuing research in those areas, but neither had even conceived the possibility of developing the sort of system in which the Americans are now engaged.

Mr. Younger: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is using the same technique as he used earlier. It is no part of my case to say that the Soviet Union has been investigating these matters but the United States has not. I have not said that, I do not believe that, and I do not think that it is a tenable position. Nor is it any part of my case that either the Soviet Union or the United States is, at this stage, intending to go beyond anything allowed by the ABM treaty. Research is, of course, allowed under that treaty.
I am making the case—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with it—that there is no ground for saying that the Soviet Union has not been investigating the whole question of strategic defence. It has been doing so, and it is doing so. It is also suggested that the United States may be doing so.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not true that official published American sources from the highest quarters of the Government have made it clear that the Soviet Union is spending more than 50 per cent. of its budget on strategic defence systems? The largeness of its armoury in offensive systems makes us realise how great is its commitment to strategic defence systems.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. We have made that point clear. It is now agreed between both sides—which is important to my argument — that both the Soviet Union and the United States of America have been indulging in that form of research. They have not even contended that they are not doing so. It is not a peripheral matter—it is a key component of what the Soviet Union is doing.
The explanation for that is, I believe, self-evident. The Soviet Union wishes to explore the scope that new technologies might offer for an effective, active defence

of the Soviet homeland against nuclear attack—defence against ballistic missiles which would complement the substantial effort which, unlike the West, the Soviet Union has already been putting into civil defence and defence against aircraft.
Let me emphasise that I am not arguing that the Soviet Union is about to deploy such a defence or that there is an intention at this time to do so in the future. It is, perhaps, simply a question of it keeping its options open. What is incontrovertible is that the Soviet Union has not accepted for all time the existing relationship between offensive and defensive forces at the nuclear level.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to the statement by the President of the United States on 23 March 1983, that if research went ahead and reached fruition the United States would be willing to share the fruits with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Younger: Indeed, that is one of the remarks made by the President. However, that is not the subject of our debate, which is on whether it is right, or wrong, for the United Kingdom to participate in the research programme associated with SDI. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, a large part of what he said this afternoon was addressed not precisely to that question, but to the possible results of a complete deployment and development of weapons systems which might or might not result from future research into that sort of technology.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has just repeated the crux of his argument—that today we are dealing purely with the research programme. Does he accept the point made by the Home Secretary, that research programmes tend to take on their own unstoppable momentum? Therefore, is it not appropriate that we should examine the possible consequences of such research programmes?

Mr. Younger: That is appropriate. There is nothing wrong with looking forward to that, but it is not appropriate to make the assumption that because the research programme has finished and has proved it can do certain things, we can proceed with development and deployment. It has been made clear that not only is that miles off in time, but that it may never happen. In any case, neither we nor the United States would intend to do anything without consultation with allies and negotiations with the Soviet Union. That is a clear dividing line which we must have before us when we consider the big issues which are raised by the whole matter.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman not take seriously the statement by both President Reagan and Secretary Weinberger that if they cannot get the Russians to agree to change the ABM treaty they plan to deploy in any case? Does he not take that threat seriously? Is it not inconsistent with the undertaking given to the Prime Minister in December 1984?

Mr. Younger: I thought that that was fairly well answered in the television programme in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared on Sunday. It was in answer to a question that the President made that remark. He was being asked whether, if the whole thing fell apart and the Russians refused to discuss the matter, he would just roll over on his back and say, "I cannot negotiate further." In any event, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is a well-known debating trick. He is trying to draw


a conclusion from asking the old question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" If the President had given another answer he would have gone into any negotiation which might eventually take place, having given away every card in the pack. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and must accept it.
How then should the West react to the Soviet effort which we, like the right hon. Gentleman, believe is in existence? Should we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it does not exist?
Should we at the other extreme decide now to abandon the existing concept of mutual deterrence which, as I have said, has served us well? The answer surely is that we, too, should explore these technologies and that we, too, should address, just as the Russians do, the benefits and the drawbacks of alternative approaches to strategy. That is precisely the approach which the British Government have adopted in addressing the implications of the strategic defence initiative.
The strategic defence initiative is not a strategy or an operational concept which is about to be implemented. It is a research programme looking at the feasibility of developing cost-effective strategic defences. It is above all a prudent hedge against the substantial Soviet activity which I have just described. It is for that reason that the Government support the SDI research programme. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
As for the outcome of SDI research—an outcome which will not be apparent for many years—neither the United States nor the United Kingdom Government have formed or could form at this stage any judgment. Indeed, it would be premature to do so. We do not know, nor can we know, what sort of results will emerge, or what sort of conclusions might be reached. The United States Government have made it clear that they have no preconceived notions about the defensive options the research may generate and that they would not proceed to development and deployment unless the research were to indicate that defences met strict criteria of survivability and cost-effectiveness. Even then they would do so only after close consutation with their allies and negotiations with the Soviet Union.
There has already been much debate on both sides of the Atlantic about the possibilities for placing a greater reliance on defensive rather than offensive systems. That debate will certainly continue, and it is right that it should. The issues are of paramount importance. For our part, the Government believe that the current structure of mutual deterrence provides a sound and effective basis for providing that degree of stability in international relations which is an essential prerequisite to continuing peace and security.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is making basic assumption throughout his whole argument that the concept of deterrence is somehow a stable concept? In reality, throughout the development of weapons systems has there not been an in-built tendency to make the systems much more sophisticated? Is riot the latest SDI research programme yet another contribution to the instability of deterrence itself? Is not the combination of a defensive system and an offensive system making invalid the mutual deterrence which he has projected?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure on which side of the argument the hon. Gentleman is. We are discussing the

development of a defensive system and whether that destabilises the balance that we have been used to. The deterrent system that we have been following has secured an acceptable balance for some time. Of course, anyone with such systems will try to modernise them and make them more sophisticated. The question is, do we ignore that and pretend that it does not happen, or do we take our part in it to try to keep the balance of deterrence which is so important?
Any step towards changing that essential framework should be taken only after all the implications have been fully thought through and carefully weighed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs outlined in his lecture to the Royal United Services Institute last year the issues which need to be addressed.
The Government's approach continues to be guided by the four points which were agreed by the President and the Prime Minister at their meeting at Camp David in December 1984 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. First, the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority, but to maintain balance, taking account of Soviet developments. Secondly, SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Thirdly, the aim is to enhance, not to undermine, deterrence. Lastly, East-West negotiation should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the defensive nature of the SDI. Has he read the report by R and D Associates of Los Angeles, which is an influential think tank on defence matters? It made the point that laser weapons being developed as part of the SDI are more likely to be used to incinerate enemy cities than to defend cities in the United States.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Lady will perhaps read in Hansard that her right hon. Friend mentioned that. The only point I make is that presumably that might be examined. The question is not whether that happens, but whether we have any control over it. That is the key point.
From the four points that I have outlined it will be seen that the Government attach great weight to the arms control implications of strategic research and possible deployments on both sides. Whatever the eventual outcome of such research, it is clear that, for the foreseeable future, Western security will depend upon the maintenance of nuclear deterrent forces. The immediate task, therefore, is to try to get reductions in the levels of these forces while maintaining strategic stability. That is the Western aim at the negotiations in Geneva.
The Soviet Union, however, continues to seek to hold agreement in this central area of strategic reductions hostage to a ban on the SDI, or a ban on space strike arms, as it terms it. The Soviet Union has mounted a major campaign to try to cast doubt on the motivation behind the SDI, notwithstanding its own research activities in related fields, and to foster alarm in the West about the consequences of pursuing it. We have seen these scare tactics before, over cruise missiles prior to their deployment in 1983. We have seen the benefits which a firm response can bring. We will continue to take a more balanced view, and will encourage the Soviet Union to do the same.


Research work on ballistic missile defence will continue on both sides as it has since the 1960s. Nothing that we say today will alter that. There is no reason why this work has to be a stumbling block to arms control agreements if both sides do not wish it to be so. The United States has made it clear that the SDI research programme will be conducted in full conformity with the provisions of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The United States has also made it clear that if SDI research yields positive results it would, after consulting the allies, consult and negotiate with the Soviet Union, in accordance with the terms of the ABM treaty, on how deterrence could be enhanced through a greater reliance by both sides on defensive systems.
If the Soviet Government want more certainty before committing themselves to arms reductions, they should take up the United States' invitation to discuss in the Geneva negotiations the relationship of offensive and defensive systems. In this way, each side could establish sufficient confidence in each other's intentions and in the framework of their security relationship to enable mutual reductions to be made in their massive strategic arsenals. The right way forward is through such discussions, but so far the Soviet Government have refused to go down this path.
It is within the framework of the four points, including our clear commitment to strategic stability and to arms control, that the British Government have viewed the question of participation in SDI research. As I have pointed out, this research, on both sides, covers technologies of relevance not just to ballistic missile defence. It embraces technologies which will be widely applicable in the battlefield of the future. Neither the British Government, nor our high technology companies, could afford to stand apart from such research. Nor have they done so. Within our defence research establishments and within other research institutions outside the Government, work has been under way in areas relevant to the SDI because these are areas relevant to our own defence effort and to the civil economy in the future.
We could have chosen as a Government to stand aside altogether from the SDI. Had we done so, we would have forgone the opportunity of an information exchange with the United States of immense potential benefit to our future defence programme. We could have abandoned the approach of Anglo-American defence co-operation which, under successive Governments, has served us so well. We could not, of course, have prevented British companies or universities from participating in the SDI if they had wished to do so, but they would inevitably have had to do so solely on United States' terms.
Instead, we have chosen the path of regulating and formalising our participation in a way which will provide a substantial opportunity for British companies and institutions to compete on equal terms with their United States counterparts. This was the approach enshrined in the memorandum of understanding signed by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and Mr. Caspar Weinberger in December. This memorandum and the detailed agreements under it set out procedures for the participation of British institutions in United States funded work in a way which enables them also to use the fruits of this work for our benefit. It also facilitates a wider information

exchange. Of course — and properly — it provides arrangements to safeguard security on both sides where this is necessary. It would be quite wrong and wholly unrealistic to proceed otherwise.
The United States Administration have emphasised their wish that there should be substantial British participation in United States-funded work. While they can provide no guarantees of the scale of our participation, their commitment is clear. What is now needed is a response for British companies, with the help of the British Government, fully to exploit this opportunity. We for our part have established within the Government an office to support SDI participation. We are anxious to work in partnership with industry and I am delighted that a presentation this week on opportunities for participation was over-subscribed twofold. It is early days in the programme, but some contracts have already been placed, including two in optical computing. Discussions are well advanced on a wide range of further opportunities for early British participation in the programme.
I maintain that the Government's approach is firmly based on the reality of the present situation—the reality of the need to take account of Soviet actions as well as of Soviet public statements and the reality of the need to take account of technologies which are not only of potential relevance to our future conventional defence effort but open up new possibilities, no more than that, for the relationship between strategic offence and defence in the long term. It is right that we should address those realities properly and fully, and it is right that we should ensure that this country has a research base capable of underpinning both its defence effort and the civil economy of the future.
It is inevitable, I suppose, that the Opposition should have sought to tackle these issues by focusing in a one-sided and anti-American way on the strategic defence initiative. If we were to follow their path, we should isolate ourselves from reality and weaken our capacity to work towards a safer and more secure world for all—both in the East and in the West. For those reasons, I urge the House most strongly to support the Government's amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Secretary of State for Defence has attempted to reply to the devastating opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but no one hearing both speeches could imagine that he has succeeded. The Secretary of State has not applied his mind to any of the immediate points that my right hon. Friend put to him. He has not attempted to explain why the understanding with the American Government about how British participation is to take place should remain secret. Nor has he explained why so many infringements have been permitted of the original terms agreed between the Prime Minister and the United States President. To the extent that he has sought to do so, it has been by repudiating the words of the United States President, who has said on a number of occasions, as have many of his supporters, that he intends to go ahead with the programme in any event.
If the claims for the strategic defence initiative programme were fundamentally correct, there would be a case for that claim, but the British Government clearly do not accept that. It seems that they still retain some fondness for the Foreign Secretary's criticisms of the original proposal. In this context, it would have been


proper for the Foreign Secretary himself to reply to the debate, just as the Government should properly have provided the time for this debate and for the Foreign Secretary to deal with the profound issues that he has emphasised. If the Foreign Secretary's criticism—it is no use trying to pretend that it was not criticism—of, for example, the impossibility of making a distinction between research and development because if the research went ahead the pressure for development would become overwhelming was a substantial criticism, it remains so today.
The Government have not made the slightest effort to discuss in the House or in the country the serious arguments made not just by the Opposition but by the Foreign Secretary himself. That speech by the Foreign Secretary was widely regarded as a most valuable contribution to the debate. I wonder whether that debate was transferred to the Cabinet or whether it followed the course so frequently adopted by the present Administration whereby major issues which should be debated in Cabinet are hurried through, hushed up or pushed into secret agreements so that debate in Cabinet and in the House is prevented.
The whole way in which the Government have dealt with these matters exposes their failure to discuss the issues in the country. At times, the Secretary of State for Defence talks as though the strategic defence initiative is just a minor logical development of what has gone before, but everyone knows that it is something quite different. The American President and Defence Secretary have presented it as something quite different. That being so, the whole matter should have been debated in the House. The only contribution that the Secretary of State for Defence has made will be to ensure that the discussion will proceed on very many future occasions.
The Secretary of State for Defence talks about reality and the way in which the Opposition approach these matters. I wish to make only a short speech, but I should like to quote at some length the comments that have been made about this, brought up to date not by the Opposition —although they vindicate all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has said — but by Lord Zuckerman, chief scientific adviser to the British Government for several years and a man whose integrity, intelligence and copious knowledge of these matters no one has ever dared to question. He probably knows more about combined military, defence and scientific implications than anyone else on the face of the planet. He has always tried to give his views as clearly and openly as he as he can. He describes the reality of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke somewhat differently.
Lord Zuckerman has described how many of these matters featured in the debates that took place before the signature of the ABM treaty in 1972. One reason why Professor Zuckerman is so worried is that what is happening will destroy that treaty. Very few treaties prevent the world from going ahead full speed in the nuclear arms race. He is worried that the ABM treaty will be destroyed just as some of those treaties, such as the nonproliferation treaty or the comprehensive test ban treaty, are also in jeopardy. The American Government are injuring and tearing up the ABM treaty, and the British Government are helping them. All the right hon. Gentleman's pious words about his desire to sustain that treaty are disproved by the reality of what has happened.
What happened in 1972? They had a discussion about defensive systems. That is why they came to the ABM treaty and why it was so important. That process is described by Professor Zuckerman in a recent article. He wrote:
The result was the ABM Treaty of 1972, a treaty that limited ABM deployment to two sites only—later changed to one—in each country. The treaty did not bar development work that improved the radars, computers, and defensive missiles deployed within the two sites, but specifically prohibited the development of any type of space-based ABM system. Stability was then the order of the political day.
It is that stability that is now being threatened and broken by the course recommended by the American Administration, which, tragically, is approved of by the British Government.
Professor Zuckerman examined the arguments. The main argument that has been put today, and which is incorporated in the Government amendment, is that the Russians have been doing it anyhow, so we should do it. If that were true in the precise terms in which they say it, it would be a very powerful argument. I have not the slightest doubt that the Government will rely on it to the maximum. That is why Professor Zuckerman, who knows a good deal more about these issues than the Government, has dealt with the matter. He says:
One major justification continues to be heard: that the Russians are engaged on work that corresponds to different elements of the SDI program, and that in many ways they are ahead of the United States. We have also been told that some Russian actions have already breached the terms of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Specific violations are spelled out in impressive brochures.
The Russians counter by pointing to American actions which in their view are breaches of the treaty. They have even offered to suspend work on the much spoken of, and highly vulnerable, vast phased-array radar system which they are building at Krasnoyarsk if the United States abandons its program to modernize the radar complexes which it has at Fylingdales in the United Kingdom and Thule in Greenland. Their spokesman argue that these modernization plans, and particularly the rebuilding of Fylingdales as what is rumored to be a 360 degree phased-array radar complex, is far more questionable than what the USSR is doing at Krasnoyarsk.
This is Professor Zuckerman examining the facts—the realities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He continues:
A further accusation by the administration is that the USSR has committed a far greater investment of plant space, capital, and manpower to advanced BMD technologies than the US has. This extravagant claim is not borne out by a CIA document about Soviet efforts which was presented to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on June 26, 1985. Indeed, the document expresses doubt about the applicability of even a network of Krasnoyarsk systems— regarded as the most serious breach of the 1972 treaty — for widespread ABM deployment. Dr. Garwin, in a follow-up to testimony presented to a congressional study group on October 10, 1985, has also pointed out that the better part of the large Soviet program on strategic defense is devoted to the upgrading of its anti-aircraft defense system.
This is not a judgment given by a partial mind. It is given by Professor Zuckerman, and is concerned with developments that have already taken place. Of course he is horrified at the possibility that we shall see destroyed one of the very few treaties that works — the ABM treaty. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants to preserve it. Professor Zuckerman continues:
It was therefore unfortunate that immediately before the Geneva summit, Robert McFarlane, then the head of the National Security Council, declared that no aspect of the development of space-based BMD components is prohibited by the 1972 ABM Treaty, and that what was intended about testing and


development merely implied a shift from the technology that was available at the beginning of the 1970s to what can be undertaken today.
What Professor Zuckerman underlines most of all in his article—indeed, it is the conclusion of his article—is that it is absurd, it is highly dangerous, for Britain, the United States and other Western countries to weaken the 1972 agreement, and to make it capable of more flexible interpretation. The amendment puts exactly such an interpretation on the treaty. Professor Zuckerman accuses the American Administration of weakening enormously the way in which the ABM treaty is applied and can be applied. If the SDI programme goes ahead, the ABM treaty will be torn up altogether.
This is the situation at which we have arrived. Professor Zuckerman concludes his article with some very serious words. There have not been so many treaties that guard against the pace of the nuclear arms race. There have not been so many treaties that have actually worked, but there have been a few and some of them are now threatened. Unless the British Government wake up and do something at the last moment, the comprehensive test ban treaty may go. The non-proliferation treaty is also threatened. The British Government do not appear to have done anything about that. The ABM treaty is now threatened, and the right hon. Gentleman's words will not do anything to protect that treaty, particularly if they conflict with the deeds — and the deeds are the signatures which the British Government put to the secret agreement with the United States. Why did they want the British Government to come along and sign on the dotted line? That has been used by the American Administration to support not only the first next step along the road, but the whole programme that they are seeking to carry through, which would involve the destruction of one of the very few treaties that guard against the renewal of the race in the most intemperate and dangerous manner.

Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman's case not completely collapse when one recognises that the ABM treaty clearly and specifically and in so many words makes it clear that research is perfectly compatible with full adherence to that treaty?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman should study what Professor Zuckerman has said. His advice is available to the Government—

Mr. Wilkinson: Read the treaty.

Mr. Foot: I will read the treaty. I will also read Professor Zuckerman's comment on this aspect of the treaty. I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear it. Here is the point about whether the treaty has been broken:
Adhering to the strictest interpretation of that treaty has therefore become a vital consideration for all of us—not some so-called liberal intepretation of the way its terms were drafted, however legally argued, not some new version, as Gerard Smith has put it, but the treaty in the sense in which it was negotiated by the two sides. Were some demonstration test of a novel BMD component by either side to result in a unilateral breach, it would be but a short step to the abrogation of the few other treaties that have been so painfully negotiated in order to try to stem the spread of nuclear weapons.
The accusation that the Government are engaged in a breach of the 1972 treaty comes not only from the Opposition but also from Professor Zuckerman, and it is

backed by supporting evidence that is available. It is an outrage of the first order that at such a critical moment in the world's history the British Government are more interested in money than in how new treaties are to be made. Money is the only thing that counts, and the Government are more interested in making a deal than in achieving a proper supranational agreement between nations that will stop the nuclear arms race altogether. The secret understanding that the Government have made—which will eventually be dragged out into the light of day —will not assist in obtaining a proper agreement. It is a dangerous and wicked diversion that will be exposed in the end.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in a sense demeaned himself by suggesting that the Government have gone down this path solely because they are interested in money. That lowered the level of the debate to a deplorable standard.
This is an issue of the utmost importance, and there are sound and considerable reasons why a view may be taken on whether the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right or wrong. However, I am sure that money is not one of the reasons.
In that context, the Marshall Institute of the United States—a very respectable and independent organisation —in response to the question, Does SDI violate the ABM Treaty?
said:
SDI is a research program whose stated goal is research on ABM defenses. However, the ABM Treaty does not limit goals. It only limits certain activities. The Department of Defense experiment that successfully demonstrated the 'smart bullet' concept at Kwajalein last June was in accord with the ABM Treaty because the Treaty allows ABM tests from areas specified as missile test ranges and so designated by the parties. (Article III.) The United States has designated Kwajalein as a missile test range.
The Marshall Institute concludes—this is relevant to the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent:
We may bump up against the Treaty in three or four years —if, for example, we begin to test space-based components. But for the next several years there is no conflict between SDI and the ABM Treaty. The Soviet 'Star Wars' program will also bump up against the ABM Treaty soon. Some experts say it has already done so.
That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.
There is an exception to almost every rule in life, and on this occasion I am happy to be able to say that I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's choice of subject for debate. Instead of the usual "Who done what and when" saga, we have an opportunity—alas, all too brief —to debate what is to my mind the most important decision facing the West today. Indeed, it faces both super-powers, because I also take the view that a fundamental Western interest is the survival of the Russian people as a whole long enough for them to understand, evaluate and eventually escape from the yoke of their self-imposed tyranny. That is in the interests of the civilised world.
The perspective of this decision on SDI on both sides extends well into the next century and clearly embraces that possibility. Our purpose is not merely the survival, but ultimately the legitimate enlargement, of the free world by the voluntary actions of convinced peoples.
The decision is not ours to make. It has been made by the United States, and inevitably our decision is merely


one of participation. But it is important that both should be right and fully justified. Both are decisions not only of greater importance but also of greater complexity than any which this House has addressed for many years. It is quite ludicrous that we should devote a mere three hours to a subject that could well justify a two-day debate. Once again our priorities reflect the lamentable unwillingness of this House to involve itself in scientific and technological decisions of great moment, partly because we do not understand them, and partly because we are so badly briefed.
Virtually all the briefing of any weight or consequence is, alas, American. There has been much discussion, but most of that—until General Abrahamson arrived in the United Kingdom this weekend — has been in the technical press. I have with me—it is a document that I commend to the House as an outstanding example of technical briefing— the report on anti-satellite weapons and counter-measures and arms control prepared for the United States Congress by the OTA. It is both a formidable and formidably important analysis, and there is one conclusion to which I draw the attention of the House.
After examining the seven major policy options—not just the one to which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred—the OTA concluded:
The opportunities and risks that might result from developing or not developing ASAT weapons or from pursuing or not pursuing ASAT arms control cannot be simply stated … the choices will require a delicate balancing of strategic economic and political interests. Reasonable persons can and will disagree as to the most appropriate nature of this balance.
That is a central conclusion to this debate. I support the objective and the programme, but I have serious reservations, some of them technical and some political.
My technical reservations are based fundamentally on what are known as the Parnas memoranda. Professor Parnas, who resigned from the SDI software panel, has in a series of formidably powerful papers argued that neither the software nor the hardware will prove sufficiently powerful, reliable or effective. His case is that the goal is unattainable.
I have seen no really convincing or persuasive reply to those memoranda. I should like to see such a reply, because nothing is more damaging to the reputation of science or technology, be it in the military or any other sphere, than attaching to it a series of expectations that are thought to be wildly unrealistic. We should reflect for a moment on what the computer system has to do.

Mr. Dalyell: A considered reply to the Parnas memoranda ought to be placed by Defence Ministers in the Library of the House within a month if there is to be a sensible discussion of this issue.

Mr. Lloyd: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. A considered reply is certainly needed, as is a full debate. The discussion is too important to be glossed over. I have not yet seen a reply. There are others who believe that it exists. If it does, we should have it so that we can argue the case.
There are also a number of other quite fundamantal matters about which reasonable persons can and will disagree. I want to concentrate on four. The first is the potential of the technology. The second is the character of what is today called C3I— command, communication control and intelligence. The third is the 100 per cent. criterion —whether it should be 100 per cent. successful if it is worth doing. The fourth is the spin-off justification.
I am powerfully persuaded by the documentation that I have seen — especially that of the OTA — that the technology has advanced to the point where the President is justified in attempting an ordered retreat from the "MAD" scenario — mutual assured destruction. The acronym is most appropriate, and the retreat if successful would be a triumph for the human race. However, I am convinced that even if a 100 per cent. layered defence proves finally to be unattainable, it is perhaps worth spending $60 billion to $ 100 billion to ensure that nine tenths of the human race survive the onslaught of a nuclear catastrophe.
My concern does not end there. The decision can never be left even to a 100 per cent. perfect computer system, however much it may depend on both. In this context we have most disturbing evidence from no less a person than Richard Beal, who until his death in 1984 was the senior director for crisis management systems in the White House.
At the Harvard conference on this subject, Mr. Beal made the following revealing reservations:
We have very few analytic tools for the very high-level people. There are at most 20 people in the whole of the USA who can understand and cope with the complex decision systems in crisis management … I would describe crisis-decision making as organised anarchy … in a crisis, your tools become unclear to you, their uses become unclear and you apply them inappropriately. The crisis decision-maker can never say 'keep your eye on the meatball' because he doesn't know what the meatball is. My proposition to you is that, in all probability, whether it is the Secretary for Defense or the Secretary of State … he's wrong … you have to operate on the premise that when you are in a crisis decision, he is likely to be wrong.
Mr. Beal goes on to say that when the crisis is nuclear
All the factors are a quantum jump. The magnitude of the data categories you have to deal with just gets staggering.
That is a profoundly disturbing commentary, but it is the heart of the system, and the situation is not very reassuring. Will we solve this problem by spending $60 billion on SDI, or whatever it takes? I think not. Other solutions are also required and will have to be sought. Without those solutions not even a 100 per cent. effective anti-ballistic missile system will guarantee the survival of our society or civilisation.
Therefore, I am not confident that a 100 per cent. defence is within sight. The only thing that will offer that is a sane world in which the pursuit of truth is given priority over the pursuit of power. That remains a distant goal. Is it worth pursuing 90 per cent.? The answer to that must, I think, be yes, or if, as a result of any serious collapse of stability or judgment, the system ever had to be used, that 10 per cent. would mean the difference between the collapse and survival of our civilisation. There is no high enough insurance premium that we can pay to achieve that objective. Moreover, I accept the powerful logic of the argument that no super-power would launch a pre-emptive strike in the certain knowledge that 90 per cent. of its missiles would not reach its targets.
Finally we come to the spin-off argument, the main justification so far for British participation. In my judgment, this has a limited validity — there will undoubtedly be a spin-off, but it is uncertain and capricious. The spin-off from our own massive defence research and development is lamentably small, however significant it may be in relation to the total expenditure involved. I see no reason to expect that it will be significantly greater with SDI.


Therefore, we must base our decision to participate on a much more secure basis—a profound confidence that the decision of the United States Government is soundly based— but we cannot neglect what we know of similar work in the Soviet Union. Everything that I have read reinforces my opinion that what is happening in this sector in the Soviet Union cannot be neglected or ignored by any reasonably objective person. If there is to be an option, we would prefer that option to be in the hands of the saner, more responsible half of the world. Even if that is not wholly successful, a limited success will increase the effectiveness of the West's defence, re-arm democracy and reduce our vulnerability to the pre-emptive strike. The option, the window of opportunity, will not remain open indefinitely, and we should seize it with both hands.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate and many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Brief speeches would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. James Wallace: Like the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), I welcome the opportunity presented by this debate. Up the corridor in the other place, there are many more opportunities to discuss this matter, often at the instigation of my noble Friends. I do not mean to criticise the Labour party when I say that I regret the timing of the debate, for we do not have an opportunity because of the absence of the Foreign Secretary, to hear him speak. We would have looked forward, had he been present, to hearing his critique of the SDI.
I do not wish to devote too much time to the technical difficulties or even the impossibilities of the project to which the hon. Member for Havant has referred. Nobody seriously talks about the possibility of a shield that would be 100 per cent. effective. However, I find talk in terms of 85 to 90 per cent. efficiency worrying. People seem to think of 85 per cent. success as being an achievement, and become blasé about the fact that one bomb, let alone 1 per cent. of 15 per cent., would devastate our civilisation.
Many people in academic and scientific life have fundamental doubts about the feasibility of producing a successful anti-ballistic defence on the scale imagined. Not only are there feasibility problems, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out, but there is the unique problem that SDI is incapable of being tested. For many people in academic and scientific life, an ethical problem is posed, if they use research funds to pursue an object that, in all honesty and good faith, they believe to be unattainable. It is also a moral challenge to us if such vast resources are to be channelled into chasing what could turn out to be an illusion, when so many earthly problems could be alleviated by spending only a small fraction of the $26 billion earmarked for this research.
What alarmed me most about the response to the amendment moved by the Secretary of State for Defence was the way that he boxed in the issue to purely a research project. We cannot look at this research in a vacuum. It proceeds inevitably against a political background and

inevitably it will influence the political environment. It is important that we address some of the problems of political strategy now.
In my intervention in the speech of the Minister, I quoted the words of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, which I shall repeat. In his March speech on the SDI he said:
The history of weapons development and the strategic balance shows only too clearly that research into new weapons and study of their strategic implementations, must go hand in hand. Otherwise, research may acquire an unstoppable momentum of its own, even though the case for stopping may strengthen with the passage of years. Prevention may be better than later attempts at a cure.
Lord Zuckerman has already been prayed in aid by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). In a debate in the other place Lord Zuckerman said:
We must remember that the nuclear arms race is, and always has been, a race in R &amp; D. The technological people who work in weapons laboratories … are not going to slow it down. The race can be slowed down and monitored only by political decision." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 697.]
That is why it is important to address, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did, the implications of this research project.
If we proceed with research and go on to develop and deploy SDI, it could have a destabilising effect, and could cause an effective barrier to arms control. Proponents of the system have argued that the West must deploy SDI research because equivalent Soviet research is going on apace. That point has already been made today. However, if the argument is that SDI will enhance stability and deterrence, what is wrong with the USSR unilaterally deploying such a defence shield? We know the answer because we had it from the hon. Member for Havant. He said that the Russians might use the security of the shield to hide behind and launch a first strike attack on the West.
It is said that the West would not use that advantage if it deployed SDI. That point has been reinforced by the agreement between the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David, particularly in that part which said:
The United States and the Western aim is not to achieve superiority but to maintain balance, taking account of Soviet developments.
Some scepticism has been expressed on this side of the Atlantic and in the House as to how genuine an expression of intention that is, but what we think is irrelevant. The critical issue is the perception of the Soviet Union. If it thinks, as it appears to do, that we would hide behind the shield and launch a first strike, and that the United States is trying to re-establish the power that it had when it had a monopoly of the atom bomb, almost inevitably it will make a response.
At the very worst the Soviet Union could respond by trying to make a pre-emtive strike in anticipation of a possible deployment, but more likely it would seek ways of countering the perceived threat. The Russians could seek to deploy a similar space defence system, although I doubt whether the Russian economy could withstand the enormous cost involved in that. More likely, they would try to defeat the objective of strategic defence by using technical means such as those already referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East in reducing the boost phase in a missile launch, developing new kinds of decoy missiles or developing a means of taking out some of the shields' space installations. Perhaps most obviously of all,


they could increase their missiles to saturation point to ensure that a good number would successfully penetrate space defences — a response which also has the attraction of being cheaper than the parallel defence initiative and which would cost the United States more to keep up.
Dr. Robert Bowman of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, writing of his experiences when he was in charge of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the 1970s, said:
Every time we designed a dollar's worth of defence, we found it could be neutralised with a nickel's worth of offence.
As the Secretary of State said, one of the criteria for judging the success of SDI will be its cost-effectiveness. If that is one of the tests, it will have a difficult job in passing that test. It is largely accepted that it is cheaper to deploy missiles of offence rather than meet the enormous costs involved in this defence inititiative.
In the meantime, what incentive is there for the Soviet team in Geneva to negotiate deep cuts in strategic weapons if they fear that at some stage in the future they will have to build them up as a possible means of overcoming or getting round an American space shield? Supporters of the SDI project claim, with some justification, that it was the research programme which brought the Soviet negotiators back to Geneva. It would be a tragic waste of an opportunity to find an arms control agreement if an unwillingness to make any significant move on SDI became the rock on which the talks foundered. I agree with Professor Laurie Freedman that it
would be easier to get Soviet agreement on a straightforward arms reduction than to the construction of a complicated new balance between offensive and defensive systems.
Opportunities are available to us today for successful arms reduction talks which could well be imperilled if there is no significant move on SDI.
Coming now to British participation in the project, I accept that there are great fears that we shall lose some of our unique advantage in computer technology. An article in this week's issue of Jane's Defence Weekly by Mr. Paul Walton must give us some concern about restrictions which could be imposed on possible further developments in research projects in Britain if they were linked with SDI. There has been no great evidence of any important civil spin-offs. We all fear—Opposition Members, anyway—a misuse of resources, both financial and intellectual, at a time when we should be crying out for civil research and development to find a new base on which we can recreate our manufacturing industry and also, in the military field, to develop emerging technologies as a means of enhancing conventional defences in Europe.
I also complain of the Government's attitude vis-à-vis the United States. We are becoming increasingly tired of a number of events which suggest that they adopt a "me, too" attitude — that what is good for America is inevitably good for Britain, with no critical analysis of the issues involved. It is not even that we are being dragged along on the United States' coat tails. Rather it appears that from time to time the Prime Minister is running to catch on to them. It is not anti-American to say that we have had enough of it.
In the context of SDI, one can legitimately ask what it offers Britain. If we believe, as my party does, that we should be building up the European pillar of NATO, a United States oriented project offers us little or nothing. It could weaken NATO. We have already seen that our

Prime Minister has rushed into an agreement while some of our European NATO allies are hesitating more. If the stage of possible deployment is reached, that could put even further strain on the NATO Alliance. As the Foreign Secretary said last March,
how would protection be extended against the non-ballistic nuclear threat, the threat posed by aircraft or cruise missiles, battlefield nuclear weapons or, in the last resort, by covert action?
How would it give protection to the very threats to which western Europe is most exposed?
If Britain has a role to play in all this, it should not be as the hanger-on trying to catch a few crumbs from the rich man's table, but rather as an old and candid ally of the United States, pointing out the potential dangers of the path that it is going down. That is an opportunity that we should be taking, not waiting for the end of a research phase when, as I have said before, the momentum might have become unstoppable.

Mr. Younger: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he do the House the honour of making it clear whether he, the Liberal party and the SDP are for or against British participation in the SDI research programme?

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman pre-empted my final sentence. For the reasons that I have given, my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the motion tonight and show our objection to the strategic defence initiative.

Sir Patrick Wall: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we are debating British cooperation in SDI research, and that is what I intend to do. I shall not make use of highly selective quotations as produced, by the Opposition. However, I understand that the Federal Republic of Germany is about to follow our example by signing an official agreement, so we are riot alone.
I want to bring the House back to what is happening. First, what is the SDI? It is basically a non-nuclear form of defence against ballistic missiles. As has been said, it is a research programme. Surely a non-nuclear defence programme should be supported by the Opposition, the Left and CND, but, unfortunately, it is not supported by any of them.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) virtually asked whether it would work. During recent discussions in America I found that people who believe in SDI say that it will work and those who do riot believe in it and think that it is a bad idea say that it will not work. If the Americans can put a man on the moon they can achieve what they want in SDI, and in a much shorter time than my right hon. Friend seems to think. I have heard four or five years suggested by some experts.
How is the research proceeding? This is important. First, there must be surveillance satellites to have a look at the whole picture and there is no paticular difficulty in that. Secondly, there is the boost phase lasting about two to five minutes when the maximum heat is generated. There, the research is on chemical lasers and electromagnetic rail guns from satellites. Thirdly, there is the post-boost stage, lasting seven to 10 minutes. That is when the boosters fall away and the 10—or fewer—MIRVs are deployed together with the decoys, possibly up to 100. At that time the ballistic missile is about 125 miles up. Research there is concentrating on pop-up X-ray laser


missiles from submarines. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is right to say that that is the only nuclear aspect. The boost for this missile, about 125 miles up, is a small nuclear generator which produces the laser. That is the only nuclear part of the programme.
Fourthly, there is the mid-course phase, which lasts 20 to 26 minutes, and experiments are taking place on ground-based lasers or particle beams reflecting from mirrors in satellites. Lastly there is the re-entry, or terminal, phase when the missile is 30 miles up, which will last two to three minutes. The F15 and the "Smart Rock" missile have already been experimented on successfully and experiments on flechettes and particle beam electromagnetic guns are proceeding.
I have mentioned those experiments because we in Europe, and certainly we in Britain, are ahead of America in many specific issues of that experimentation. For example, we are ahead on electro-optics. We are ahead on some aspects of radar particle beams and lasers and on the reflection from mirrors. On all those issues, Europe, and Britain in particular, is ahead of America. Therefore the Americans want to co-operate with us just as much as we want to co-operate with them. The Americans are spending $3,500 million in the 1986 financial year on the SDI and the Soviet Union is I am told, spending 10 times as much. I remind the House that the Soviet Union started its programme in the late 1960s, so it has a good lead.
I shall go briefly through some of the arguments. Star wars is nothing to do with SDI. Its about anti-satellite satellites, and there the Soviet Union is well ahead of the West. It has been argued that SDI provides protection for America, not for Europe. An intercontinental ballistic missile fired from central Russia may be targeted on London, Rome or New York—no one knows. If ICBMs are stopped during the boost phase, Europe and America are protected. The experts have informed me that this system is designed to bring down long-range rockets but that short-range rockets are easier to bring down, for various technical reasons. This means that the terminal phase would have to take place in Europe because short-range rockets would be fired against Europe.
It has been argued that the SDI is destabilising. The USSR has been experimenting since 1966 on forms of the SDI. What would happen if the USSR achieved a perfect defence system and the West did not? The West would be open to nuclear blackmail to which it would have no answer. That point has not been brought out in the debate. The USSR could have achieved a perfect defence system before America but, now that America has woken up and is doing something, she will get there first. She deserves our generous co-operation. If the SDI strengthens the deterrent in America and Europe, I do not see how it can be destabilising. The Soviet Union is experimenting with anti-satellite systems and has 10,000 surface-to-air missiles. Its air defence system is stronger than any other country's. It has been argued that the SDI is decoupling. If it strengthens both America and Europe, it cannot be decoupling. The SDI would be de-coupling, and therefore be the end of both of us, only if the USSR got there first.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to 100 per cent. defence. The experts have told me that it is highly unlikely that 100 per cent. protection will ever be achieved. It is also highly unnecessary. A 50 or 60 per cent. defence capability is enough. A country that knows

that 50 per cent. of its missiles on each target will be brought down is unlikely to start a nuclear war. Therefore, we do not need a 100 per cent. defence, and no one expects it to reach that level.
Arms control has been mentioned. Recently, I visited Geneva and talked to various organisations attending the conference on disarmament. I believe that the Soviet Union will make concessions on intermediate nuclear forces to split Europe from the United States. The Soviet Union will then say, "We shall implement these concessions only if the Americans drop the SDI." I believe, following discussions in the Pentagon and on the Hill, that it is impossible for the Americans to drop the SDI. They will go ahead whatever Europe does. There is, therefore, a danger that the Russians will use this blackmail to try to separate the United States from Europe.
The non-proliferation point has been argued, but the SDI is non-nuclear and that point is not of concern in this debate. I believe, despite what some hon. Members have said, that the technological fallout will be high. I do not believe that any country that wants to be in the first rank in terms of technology can avoid co-operating in this scheme.
I shall not refer to the 1984 Thatcher-Reagan agreement because reference has already been made to it. All I will say is that the Americans and the Europeans are extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for starting off the project with some important rules.
The strategic defence initiative with a non-nuclear defence will lessen the threat from ballistic missiles and will eventually enable most ballistic nuclear missiles to be abandoned. Surely that is what we want. The main debate during the North Atlantic Assembly's plenary session in October in San Fransisco was on SDI. A composite resolution was tabled which catered for most tastes and therefore allowed people to vote who otherwise might not have done so. The eighth and operative paragraph of the resolution stated:
To support US research in SDI consistent with the provisions of the ABM Treaty.
The vote on the resolution was 91 in favour, 12 against, with 28 abstentions.

Dr. John Gilbert: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on his first speech as Secretary of State for Defence. Although I do not agree with everything he said, I think that he gave a competent performance.
I am opposed to development and deployment of SDI, but on grounds that differ greatly from those so far advanced by my colleagues. I should like to make it clear that I reluctantly support the United States' research programme and participation by British companies in that programme, if possible.
As the debate has shown, there are many concepts of the strategic defence initiative— for example, that it will be available only for silo protection, that it will be available for city protection, and that it will be available for complete protection, which is the 100 per cent. umbrella concept. No one knows what will emerge. The hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) and for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) are highly sceptical that there will be anything like a 100 per cent. umbrella.
Hon. Members have quoted various sources. In addition, distinguished former American Secretaries of


Defence such as Mr. Harold Brown and Mr. James Schlesinger take that view. I dissent to some extent from the view put by the hon. Member for Beverley because I believe that anything less than a 100 per cent. shield would be an appalling waste of resources. I would not want 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the Russian warhead inventory landing on NATO countries. That would be the end of civilisation as we knew it.
The 100 per cent. shield would involve not just the SDI but the Americans in reconstituting defences against the manned bomber and creating, ab initio, defences against submarine-launched cruise missiles. That is the element of the threat about which the Americans are most concerned. The cost of creating a threefold defensive system of that sort will be not hundreds of billions of dollars but thousands of billions of dollars—an obscene amount.
I am unhappy about the Reagan concept of the 100 per cent. shield because it is incompatible with the concept of nuclear deterrence. I believe in that concept. That is not a fashionable view in my party at the moment, but I see no reason to change my mind. If one could create an impermeable shield around the United States there would be considerable implications for Europe's defence.
It has been said that it might be possible to create an effective defence against incoming ballistic missiles for western Europe. I am even more sceptical about that than I am about the possibilities of creating such a defence for north America. It is far more difficult to defend Europe against the manned bomber or cruise missiles than to defend the United States. A manned bomber that wanted to reach cities in Canada, let alone those in the United States, would have to cover 4,000 miles of tundra. Nothing could be easier to find in thousands of miles of tundra where the only other warm presence is a polar bear and where there is nothing else metallic. Of course, the fog of war in western Europe would be totally different from war in North America. The Secretary of State knows that it is impossible to guarantee the defence of these islands against attack by manned bombers. I am glad that he has acknowledged that.
It has been argued that SDI is destabilising. I tended towards that view at one time, but I am no longer so sure. It would certainly be true if one envisaged a scenario in which on one day the United States had no effective defence against ballistic missiles and then a short time afterwards had something very close to an effective defence, but that is not likely to develop. As we have heard today, and as everybody knows, Soviet research has been taking place for years in those areas.
In my judgment, it is almost certain that Soviet capabilities lag behind American capabilities, but their capabilities will develop just as the Americans' have. I find it inconceivable that the Americans will be able to produce an effective system of this sort and the Soviet Union will be left with the cupboard bare. I do not think that the accusation of destabilisation is a very powerful argument to use against the SDI programme.
I am a strong supporter of the ABM treaty. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends have acknowledged that in the past. I believe that it is the best way to preserve the principle of deterrence. If we lose that treaty, which we might, the principle of deterrence falls by the wayside.
Several things have been said today about President Reagan's views on these matters. However, we can all take comfort from the fact that President Reagan will not be around for the final decisions, or for more than a couple

of years—at least as President. It is certain that funding in the United States will be doubtful after 1988. So far, only one of the likely presidential candidates in 1988 is committed to the programme—Mr. Bush. As far as I know, none of the others has committed himself to the programme, and certainly the members of the Congress with whom I have discussed the matter are extremely reluctant to contemplate the huge amounts of money that would be involved, not only in continuing the research programme but going forward to full development.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has come into the Chamber, because I was about to say something about Krasnoyarsk. I would not want to say anything in his absence and I certainly would not want to give him a seminar on any subject, but the difference between Thule, Fylingdales, and Krasnoyarsk is not necessarily what is contained in the phased array radars but the siting of them. Thule and Fylingdales are on the periphery of the territories they are protecting and Krasnoyarsk is in the middle. That is a considerable strategic difference.

Mr. Healey: Of course; that is why Krasnoyarsk is a technical breach of the treaty, and I said that. The American argument is that it is intended for the control of a space defence system of the type the Americans are trying to develop. As I understand it, that is not a view held by the British Government, who have refused to endorse the American view. Many people doubt that even the Americans could master the computer technology required for their system, and the idea that the Russians could master it is preposterous.

Dr. Gilbert: I am glad that once again my right hon. Friend and I are in total agreement. I hope that the new Secretary of State will be more forthcoming on the matter of Krasnoyarsk than his predecessor, despite several appearances to be questioned by the Select Committee on this matter.
I am totally opposed to the deployment of the SDI. I think that it would be a most appalling waste of resources. It could make the world less safe. Fortunately, I think it is most unlikely to fulfil President Reagan's vision. But I must say that I support American research in that area. In present circumstances, I do not see that the Americans have any choice. It would be nothing but irresponsible of any American Administration to abandon their research while faced with continuing Russian research. It does not matter who started it; the important thing is where we are now.
If the Americans are to continue with the research, I see no reason why British companies should not share in it. There are obviously problems with respect to property rights and COCOM and they are matters which I hope will be investigated by the Select Committee on defence. It had already started investigating those matters before it was side-tracked by other recent matters. All of those things need to be considered with the greatest concern. We should not support the development of prototypes and every effort must be made to negotiate away any further development in that area. As of now, I must say that I think that the United States has no choice but to proceed with the research.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert)


put the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) right on Krasnoyarsk. It was more than a technical error in his speech; it was a fundamental flaw. It was actually even worse, because the Krasnoyarsk radar is situated away from the periphery where it would be well located for battle management were such a capability to be in existence. It is its proximity to potential targets that is so important. A technical breach of the treaty, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East calls it, is a very serious matter. Building a major facility of this kind in a place which is clearly and demonstrably against article 6 of the ABM treaty is a matter which the United States must take into account when making its assessment of Soviet intentions.
I think that the more awesome the weapons of massive destruction that are targeted against us, the more important it is for us to seek a defence against them. It is a moral dimension to the argument, something which the President of the United States has always preached. It is not just a technical matter or a matter of keeping up with the Soviet Union. There is a clear will on President Reagan's part, and on the part of his Administration, to try to remove some of the awesome threat that hangs over mankind. The mutual balance of terror has assured the peace, but we cannot be certain that it always will. If by accident or miscalculation the deterrent broke down, I would much rather have 85 or 90 per cent. of defence, or even 50 per cent. as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) said is effective, than none at all. No one can convince me that total vulnerability enhances deterrence. The reverse is the case.
When the manned penetrating bomber was the main instrument of Western deterrence, we thought it appropriate and wholly right, as did the then former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, to seek a measure of defence against it with our fighter forces, and we still do. Yet, strangely, in his speech he criticised the SDI because, he said, it was a means of defending missile silos and launch sites and not populations. The fighter forces, in the days when Fighter Command sought to protect the V bomber bases, did just that. However, if the SDI is fully implemented—that is, if the research programme proves to be successful and the technology is found to be attainable and we can move from point defence systems to a full panoply of multilayered space-based defence systems—we shall have a global system of defence which will protect populations as well as launch sites. It will protect not only our friends and allies, but neutrals and other countries which could be subject to ballistic missile attack. It really is a very exciting prospect.
As we have devoted so much energy and such huge sums of money to developing offensive systems of mass destruction, would it not be better if, in these days, we used at least part of our intellectual energy and part of our resources to see whether we can use our new technologies to defend populations? We could not achieve 100 per cent. defence, but the SDI will greatly minimise the prospect of pre-emptive attack, which is what we most fear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley made clear, no potential aggressor will ever be certain that he can destroy any particular target. In other words, the capability for retaliation will remain and deterrence will be enhanced.
As was so well explained by my hon. Friend, who is so expert on these matters, the alliance has long depended upon the United States' nuclear guarantee. Without it we should have been naked and there might conceivably have been aggression against western Europe as there has been against Afghanistan and other neutral countries bordering the Soviet Union. It is the certainty of United States' nuclear retaliation on our behalf that has preserved the peace.
If our American friends feel that by invoking a nuclear response in defence of western Europe they are not, as a consequence of that retaliation on our behalf, ensuring the incineration of their cities, the more likely it will be that they will be prepared to go nuclear and defend western Europe. If, however, the United States feels that the destruction of the North American homeland is certain if it invokes nuclear retaliation on our behalf, the United States President would be unlikely to invoke the response that we need. That is why the United States nuclear guarantee is enhanced by the SDI.
We come to the question whether the SDI will accelerate the arms race and diminish prospects for arms control. It is my belief, as it is the belief of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that the Soviet economy will be less able than NATO to sustain an arms race, if that is the way it wants to go.
It is my earnest hope, and that of the United States Administration and my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government, that this prospect is too awesome to contemplate. Rather than proliferate offensive systems and maximise the penetration potential of its strategic weaponry, it would be better for the Soviet Union, in the face of strategic defence, to seek to build down its offensive armoury. There could then be a genuine prospect of a breakthrough in arms control.
We have been waiting for that breakthrough for a long time, and it has not happened. After NATO's deployment of cruise missiles, the Soviets walked out of the Geneva talks. It was only when the President insisted on going through with SDI, and was not diverted from its purpose, that was it clear to them that they had better come back and talk.
I wholly applaud the clear exposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who said that there were good grounds for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her Government to support the United States Administration in the endeavour of the SDI. It is an allied endeavour. In the sphere of strategic deterrence, arms control and the balance of power it is a small world. In space terms, this planet is a very small globe. People must learn to think in different terms from those with which they were brought up.
In last year's debate on the Royal Air Force I urged it to place much greater emphasis on a space-based defence systems than it does at present. The United States Air Force has a space command. We must move in that direction, not to increase the arms race, but to increase our joint defence potential.
I whole-heartedly support my right hon. Friends' reasoned amendment.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: It is important that we understand what has moved the United States to undertake a close examination of the possibilities


of strategic defence. We should examine them critically and decide whether we support tonight's motion which challenges them.
President Reagan's decision seems to have arisen from several factors. The first was the deterioration of the strategic balance that has occurred since the signing of SALT I in 1972. It was then our hope and assumption that, with the stringent limits on defence against ballistic missiles embodied in the treaty, the negotiation of significant reductions in strategic offensive nuclear arms would be possible. That has not proved to be the case.
The number of warheads on Soviet strategic ballistic missiles today is four times greater than when SALT I was concluded. Furthermore, the Soviet capability to destroy hard targets quickly has increased by a factor of 10. That growth in offensive capabilities is contrary to what the House of Commons expected in 1972.
At the same time, the Soviets have been pursuing major efforts on the defensive side. Over the past 20 years, they have spent about as much on strategic defence as they have on their massive offensive nuclear build-up. They have deployed extensive air defences and the world's only operational ABM and anti-satellite systems.
Moreover, the Soviets have for many years devoted extensive resources to investigating many of the same technologies that are now being brought together in the SDI research programme but without the public debate that we are having today.
The aggregate of Soviet offensive and defensive activities since 1972, some of which are in violation of, or raise troubling questions about, compliance with existing arms control agreements, is persuasive evidence that they did not accept the concept of stable mutual deterrence on which the House believed the ABM treaty to be premised.
A second factor leading to the SDI was the technological advances which have taken place since 1972. Great strides have been made in effectiveness and cost reductions in many areas relevant to ballistic missile defence, such as microelectronics, data processing and sensors. They may now make possible defensive systems that were beyond the reach of the technology of 15 years ago. Technology is thus opening new possibilities for strategic defence and may offer survivable and cost-effective defensive systems.
The third factor behind the SDI is the current requirement by the West to undertake a profound reevaluation of the basis of its defence thinking in the nuclear age. Soviet force levels are now superior to those of NATO in each component of the triad on which Western defence policy is based—conventional arms, INF and strategic nuclear arms. The maintenance of stability through arms control and agreement in Geneva has been rendered even more difficult given the assymetries of force structures and levels on both sides.
When new technologies offer the West a way out from under the shadow of that new threat —one in which deterrence would be based more on the ability to defend rather than to retaliate with predictably tragic devastation —and when it might be possible to offer a better and brighter vision for the future, we have an obligation to search for it. But what if the SDI continues to get in the way of East-West agreement? What if it proves to be destabilising, given the vital importance of strategic balance in maintaining deterrence?
What if the SDI leaves western Europe much more exposed militarily, and thus leads to decoupling? What if the SDI becomes politically devisive as the Soviet Union seeks to exploit unease within the Alliance, as she did over the deployment of cruise missiles? What if the SDI induces a Maginot line mentality in space, as the Foreign Secretary has apprehended? What if the SDI gives added impetus to the French Eureka programme? What if the convenient arrival of certain technologies and the prospect of billions of dollars sloshing around in defence procurement have gravely affected our thinking and judgment? Would it not then become a classic case of technology driving policy rather than the other way around?
That is borne out by the widespread fear that high spending on strategic defence may result in less money being available for conventional forces. Paul Nitze has argued on behalf of the United States that a shift of only 1 per cent. in resources is involved. Does that not give a misleading impression, because the gap between resource allocation and force planning remains ominously wide?
Only 70 per cent. of NATO force goals are realised in national programmes, yet across the Alliance there are budgetary constraints ahead. The most serious deficiency at present is in sustainability, as the Supreme Allied Commander, General Rogers, has frequently given public utterance to. It is in ordinary bread and butter items, such as ammunition stocks, hardened aircraft shelters, improved reception facilities for reinforcements and so on. Therefore, it is not only the impact of a vast lavishly financed space-based programme on conventional arms programmes that is of concern, but the shift of priority that it may indicate.
Conventional insufficiency has the most serious implications for the nuclear threshold, as every hon. Member 'knows. Might not the enormous sums that are being allocated to the SDI be better employed to enhance deterrence than to risk undermining it?
Stripped of technical jargon and sophisticated language, the appeal of the SDI for the layman lies in the possibility that it might at long last enable us to bottle the nuclear genie. To shift from mutually assured destruction to mutually assured security has an irresistable appeal for us all. To achieve even the transitional stage of a mix of offensive and defensive systems with a diminishing nuclear content is an alluring thought. However, doubts and worries are widespread, not only in Europe, but in the United States. Some of the questions raised during the debate may defy answers at present, but they are of such critical importance that they must be faced. We cannot shrug them off as the Secretary of State did today.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Last autumn I spent some time in the United State and met some scientists, including Dr. Richard Gavin and Dr. Sydney Drell. who were sceptical about the SDI. It was more the technical than the strategic problems which held the attention of the majority.
We do not know yet whether the SDI will work and whether 15 systems can combine in perfect harmony. The point of the research programme is to find a way in which it can work. It is said that physics may not be without limits, but the ability of human genius to overcome obstacles is so far unlimited, and the will to do something is always important in finding solutions. This massive and


imaginative programme needs political will, not carping discouragement or hard judgments based only on speculation.
The SDI is the challenge of all time. It is an exciting new challenge to render nuclear weapons obsolete, to have defensive defence which kills other weapons but does not destroy civilians and industrial targets as offensive nuclear weapons can, and which poses a probability problem for a hostile power, which could never claim to know that it could achieve its military objectives.
The SDI is sometimes known as the great experiment. The question whether it will work on a systems level and whether it can work as a strategy is important. Every strategy depends on treaties and co-operation for control, and no system can be 100 per cent. effective. Everything that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said could happen, might happen, but at present, if deterrence fails, there is nothing to stop USSR missiles from reaching their targets.
Mutually assured destruction is a precarious balance for the world to operate on, and the number of nuclear weapons has mushroomed dangerously since the war. We must call a halt to that increase and to the intellectual impasse which has been created in its wake. General Abrahamson has said that if only a few nuclear missiles land it is very different from 8,000 landing, and that a defensive deterrent is fail safe, whereas an offensive deterrent is fail deadly. That is the profound difference in concept.
One of the major objections to the 15 major experiments that are planned is that the programme may violate the ABM treaty signed by the super-powers in 1972. The treaty was an acknowledgement by both sides of the futility of building terminal stage intercept systems to guard against warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. At the time it seemed to be a major step towards stopping the arms race, since the offence would no longer be required to saturate the defence.
The treaty permitted each side to build defences on a single site. The USSR chose defence around Moscow, and the United States chose defences in North Dakota, which I visited while in the United States. The treaty allows for research into ABM systems, but prohibits the building of new components. Amendments and reviews are permitted under the treaty and the strategic defence initiative. In its present form the SDI is technically compliant. A decision on development will be made by the United States within the confines of the ABM treaty. The Soviets, who have been in this area for many years, seem to be in danger of flouting the treaty, but the United States has offered to share the new technology and monitoring with the Soviets. I believe that the SDI programme has helped to achieve that, and that the peace initiative was prompted by the SDI.
Finally, the major criticism is: why should Britain wish to protect the United States alone? My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) gave sound reasons for our participation in the programme, and already the initiative for the defence of European aerospace has been mooted for approval in Europe. It is a valuable consequence of the SDI, and it could also help to overcome the limitations which we might face on the transfer of technology through export controls, despite the memorandum of understanding with the United States. We

have been promised a share in the $26 billion, and we should ignore that at our peril as it is a great challenge and stimulus to British technology. If firms can compete and win, it is to our benefit.
We must go ahead to see whether the system will work. In the fulness of time scientists will make the technology work, but politicians must make the strategy work. It is our only hope of releasing ourselves from the present capricious game of nuclear stockpiling. Britain's involvement is a must, both in the United States system and in a programme for Europe, which would enhance our security in western Europe.

Mr. Gavin Strang: When President Reagan made his televised address on 23 March 1983 it had an enormous impact on the American electorate. It was designed to do so because at that time Americans were becoming increasingly worried about the effect of nuclear war, and increasingly appreciating that the survivors would envy the dead, and that the idea of fighting a nuclear war was unthinkable. Increasing numbers of Americans were supporting the freeze movement. In essence, that address was an excellent piece of political propaganda. It influenced the American electorate to advance the idea that the American Government could develop a system that rendered nuclear weapons obsolete and meant that in future Americans would no longer have to fear the effect of a nuclear attack. The first question that must be asked is whether there is any realistic prospect of achieving a so-called shield that would render the United States invulnerable to nuclear attack. The answer is no.
A measure of how skilful the propaganda has been is the tendency that exists to forget that we are talking only of long-range ballistic missiles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said in his opening remarks, that technology has no relevance to cruise missiles. Even if the system were effective in providing the protection that its advocates suggest, would it render long-range ballistic missiles impotent and obsolete? Again, the answer is a categorical no. I do not speak out of arrogance, because of my knowledge on those matters, but on the basis of statements by leading scientists in Britain, Europe and the United States. Those leading scientists are agreed. Professor Jack Ruina, professor of electronic engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who previously worked for the American Defence Department, stated clearly that the whole idea was absurd. The system cannot achieve the objective laid down by President Reagan.
Throughout Europe and the United States there is much interest in the money that will be invested in the huge programme. British scientists are interested in the money. I pay tribute to those British scientists who have taken a principled stand and who are not prepared to accept the money or to continue with the research, because they would be a part of the SDI programme. However, many scientists take a different view and would accept the money.
I am worried about the enormous impact of American defence money on Britain's research and technology base. One reason for Britain's relative industrial decline has been the fact that far too high a proportion— 53 per cent. and rising—of Government-funded research and development is in the military sphere. It is a mistake to increase that percentage even further. I fear the


consequences of greater American funding, influence and control over Britain's basic scientific research and development. I cannot believe that that would be in Britain's interest.
There is much concern about the secrecy aspect and the fact that Americans will impose conditions on the results of the research, thus making it less available to benefit British industry.
Obviously, results will be achieved from all that money and tremendous advances will be made in scientific and technological work that has been funded by the programme, but will that make nuclear war more or less likely? All the evidence shows that nuclear war would be more likely. Time does not allow me to develop all the arguments to substantiate that statement. However, I have often argued that the whole philosophy of mutually assured destruction is being undermined by the development of new accurate weapons, which are designed to destroy not populations but military installations and command centres. The development of partial protection for missile sites will enhance instability.
We must recognise the likely Soviet response. If necessary, the Soviets will deploy more offensive weapons and they will develop less vulnerable ballistic missiles by such developments as shortening the boost phase and incorporating more decoys. The Soviet Union and the United States will soon have the capability to destroy satellites and thus attack a defensive system. SDI is a destabilising development.
I wish to discuss the impact on arms control. I respect the statement of the Secretary of State for Defence. I am sure that he is committed to the 1972 ABM treaty. However, the SDI is not a continuation of research in the United States and the Soviet Union. The SDI is a massive programme with a special goal. It is hard to believe that it will be stopped in the 1990s. There will be too much pressure to go forward. It has already been said that the United States will not give the Soviet Union a veto. Having done all the research and having acquired some capability to provide some protection, there will be enormous pressure to go further and begin deployment.
Instead of the Government being in the lead in Europe in relation to the SDI, they should be in the lead in getting a positive response from the United States to Mr. Gorbachev's latest proposals, which came out of discussions between the United States Government and the Soviet Government. Those proposals are enormously important. It is sad that notice has not been taken of the significant concessions that Mr. Gorbachev has built into those proposals, which are tailored to objections put forward in the past by the United States and Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to zero option, which is the removal of intermediate range weapons and not only moving SS20s into the Asian sector but destroying them. The Soviet Union accepts that if Britain and France do not modernise, they can keep their nuclear weapons without them being counted in. The extension of the nuclear unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests, the commitment to new verification procedures and the suggestion, I think, that research on SDI will be allowed to go ahead provided that it is no more than that, are important concessions.
If we are serious about making progress and reducing the threat of nuclear war, instead of going down the road of the SDI we should make the maximum effort to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Soviet and American

Governments to negotiate on the basis of the latest proposals, so that we can achieve real reductions in their nuclear arsenals.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I congratulate him on making such a fine presentation of the Government's case. I am delighted that a Foreign Office Minister is to sum up, because some of my comments are addressed more to the Foreign Office than to the Ministry of Defence.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that our support for the Government's position should not stop us expressing concern about the implications of SDI and the need to face the problems arising from those implications. Anxiety has been expressed today and by members of the North Atlantic Assembly whom I met in Brussels during the weekend about whether there will be a genuine two-way transfer of technology, less money for conventional defence, the effects of strategic stability and for Britain, the impact of the extension of strategic defences on the effectiveness of the French and British nuclear deterrent and the defence of western Europe.
Reports from Geneva suggest that, as a part of the package of disarmement proposals, the United States would agree to remove all its medium-range nuclear weapon systems from Europe and that the Russians would withdraw their SS20s behind the Urals and would not in the initial stages insist on immediate reductions leading to the dismantling of the French and British nuclear forces. However, the understanding is that there would not be any steps taken by the British and the French to modernise their nuclear deterrent forces. For Britain, that means goodbye to the Trident programme, on which work has already begun.
I recognise that the United States' prime objective in the negotiations is to seek immediate cuts in offensive strategic forces with no restrictions on defensive research. I hope that the British Government will make it clear to our American allies that there can be no question of our deterrent being used as a bargaining chip least of all in the early stages of disarmement negotiations. We shall wish to see firm and verifiable evidence of the Soviet build-down before our nuclear forces can be the subject of negotiation.
The mind boggles to contemplate the withdrawal of intermediate nuclear forces from Europe after all the fuss of installing cruise and Pershing in western Europe. The Duke of York's experience was nothing on this. The withdrawal of medium-range SS20s behind the Urals does not preclude their redeployment west of the Urals directed at western Europe. Nor should we forget that such an arrangement would leave intact the SS21 missile and the SS23 missile, which has a range of up to 500 km.
That highlights an anxiety in western Europe, which has been expressed especially in West Germany. It is well known that our conventional forces are insufficiently strong to resist a Soviet conventional attack. At best, they could not prevent conventional Soviet forces from overrunning all of West Germany and extending into the Netherlands. At worst, we would lose such a war, which is one reason why Conservative Members and a few Opposition Members recognise the need for nuclear


weapons which, by their presence, would deter an attack. The use of tactical nuclear weapons would stop a conventional attack in its tracks.
I hope that the Government will continue to make it clear to the United States that, in its desire to achieve a build-down in nuclear strategic weapons on the way to a better balance of offensive and defensive systems, which is what SDI is about, it should be careful not to weaken prematurely the present delicate balance of military power, with its mix of nuclear and conventional forces, which has been the cornerstone of nuclear strategy for the past 30 years. Nor in the negotiations should the United States forget that a nuclear-free Europe would not be a chemical-free Europe. We in Europe have no chemical capability; the Russians have.
Although I understand why research into SDI must and will continue—there is no way of stopping it and I would not wish to stop it—on our way to a nuclear-free world, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will do all that he can to minimise the destabilising effects that SDI may have on the defence of western Europe, not least in the context of the Geneva negotiations.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In view of the limitation on time, right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal with all of the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate.
The short history of the Government's endorsement of SDI and their over-hasty involvement in its commercial and industrial implementation is shameful and humiliating. Once again, the Government have demonstrated their subservience to American defence and foreign policies and to American commercial and industrial interests. They have acted in a manner that far transcends Britain's proper duties and obligations to a major NATO ally.
The sorry tale started on 21 December 1984 when the Prime Minister, at Camp David, hitched Britain's tottering and tattered wagon to star wars. As always on such occasions, there were fine words to mask exactly what was being done. The agreement was ridiculously and pompously described as the Camp David accord. Many nice phrases and words such as "research" and "enhanced and extended deterrence" were used—phrases that had hardly been heard before and some of which had not been dreamt of before. But that is the history of the nuclear arms race. The words, phraseology and philosophy—if it can be called that—follow the technological decisions.
The Secretary of State for Defence talked about the flexible response debates in the 1950s and 1960s. I remind him that there has been no consultation on SDI. No other NATO country was consulted before President Reagan announced the initiative. Indeed, it had not even been thought of in those other countries. To equate the present position, where decisions were taken unilaterally, with what happened in the past is a travesty of the history of that period.
After the Camp David accord, the message in Washington was clear: Maggie had been squared and the poor old Brits were in. In the New York Times on 16 March 1984, about a speech by the Prime Minister to Congress

in February—the House will remember that she told the President that we in Britain thought he was wonderful—a reporter said:
Mrs. Thatcher's speech was widely interpreted as offering almost unqualified backing to SDI.
From then on, with the honourable exception of one speech by the Foreign Secretary—the speech, and the Foreign Secretary, were promptly squashed—no attempt has been made to analyse, debate or confront the enormous military and strategic implications of SDI. All the talk now is about money, contracts and dollars.
In fairness to him, I should say that the Foreign Secretary tried. On 15 March last year, he produced a courteous but devastating criticism of the strategic defence initiative. He said that research could acquire an unstoppable momentum; it has done so repeatedly throughout the nuclear arms race. He said that political decisions could be pre-empted by technology; they always are. The technology comes first and we sit here and try to rationalise and fit the technology into a political or military strategy. He said that offensive weapons might increase to overwhelm defences; that will certainly happen unless people sit down soon and negotiate a treaty to prevent it. He said that SDI could cause strains within the NATO Alliance.
However, well before the ink was dry on that speech, a ton of bricks fell on the poor Foreign Secretary's head. It started with The Times on 18 March, which called the speech
muddled, mealy-mouthed, luddite and ill-informed.
It pompously told us of the anger of the inner circle of the American Administration. The Times clearly has a hot line to the White House and the Pentagon. But worse was to follow. The American ambassador called at Carlton gardens and, a few days later, at a conference in London of the loony Right—a conference that was welcomed by the Prime Minister and President Reagan—Mr. Richard Perle, who is I believe a Pentagon apparatchik, made an astonishing attack on the Foreign Secretary of a major NATO ally. He arrogantly said of the speech:
Length is no substitute for depth.
That was that. No member of the Government defended the Foreign Secretary, as far as I am aware. There was no statement from the Prime Minister defending her Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Healey: She apologised.

Mr. Davies: She apologised, as my right hon. Friend has said. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary did not defend himself, and has said little, if anything, about SDI ever since. At that point, the humiliation and the capitulation were complete.
The drama moves to 23 June last year, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) went to the Pentagon. I remind the House that the former Secretary of State for Defence was, at that time, homo Americanus. He had not yet evolved into his new phase of European man. Perhaps there were stirrings deep in the forest. He went to get some contracts from his friend Caspar. His intention was to get £1·5 billion-worth of contracts, but, as we all know, he came back completely empty-handed. No matter. There was no pride left by then and in December the Government rushed to sign with Mr. Weinberger what has been called a memorandum of understanding.
Mr. Weinberger got almost everything he wanted from that agreement. He got access to British research and


technology which, we understand, will probably be classified by the Pentagon and, if it is useful and valuable, it will disappear for ever behind the wall of the star wars programme. In the Pentagon there is a gentleman called Hoppler and he has a list, not a little list, called the military critical technologies list. He classifies whatever he wants to classify and he will classify any research and technology that he needs for star wars.
Why cannot the memorandum by published? Why can it not be placed in the Library so that we can decide for ourselves whether there is any protection for British intellectual property rights and other rights? Quite apart from classification and far more important, Mr. Weinberger got Britain to become the first country to sign on the dotted line of the star wars programme. No other country has followed Britain's lead, although I understand that the Federal Republic of Germany may sign fairly soon.
In this debate much has been said about research. It has been said that star wars is all right and is all about research, that in 10 years there may be a problem but everything is all right now and everybody is in favour of research. "Research", as Dylan Thomas might have said, is a comfortable and cosy word. It conjures up nice warm images of slightly dotty chemical teachers and pipettes and bunsen burners and litmus papers being dipped into beakers. I am told that there is no litmus paper at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California. I have checked and found that the laboratory carries out laser lethality tests. The researchers fire particle beams which destroy matter itself and they or their cohorts detonate hydrogen bombs or certainly nuclear weapons—six have been detonated already—to experiment with one of the star wars systems. The researchers or their cohorts fire rockets to destroy rockets.
I accept that it may not be possible to draft a treaty to control fundamental scientific research in this field. I am the first to concede that no treaty could stop the manic outpourings from the mind of Dr. Edward Teller. I wish that that were possible, but it is not. Equations are of no use without technology, and technology is of no use unless it is tested and developed to find out whether it works. Instead of rushing into an endorsement of star wars, the Government and our European allies should have brought pressure upon the Americans to sit down with the Russians to negotiate a treaty to stop the tests, demonstrations and developments. As the Foreign Secretary said, they should be stopped before they gather an unstoppable momentum. With good will and application, it is possible to create by negotiation that kind of treaty, and a start could be made by agreeing to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. That would not stop the star wars programme, but at least it would deal it a heavy blow. The Government do not even want a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
President Reagan has spoken of the immorality of nuclear weapons, and in that famous speech he said they should be made impotent and obsolete. That was the dream, but it rapidly became a nightmare. SDI has become star wars. To what are the Government committed? Are they committed to the dream? Do they believe that nuclear weapons are immoral? Do the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister believe that nuclear weapons should be made obsolete and impotent, or are the Government merely going along with the nightmare in order to make a few dollars and a few pounds?
We have heard little over the past months about the dream or the morality or the necessity to make nuclear weapons obsolete, but we have heard much about contracts and money and dollars. Unless a treaty is negotiated, soon there will be a development on both sides of offensive and defensive systems. The Americans will build their imperfect defence and no doubt the Russians, in their own way, will follow. The Americans will build offensive systems to get around the imperfect. Russian defence and no doubt the Russians will build offensive systems to get around the imperfect American defence. President Reagan's nightmare will become a reality.
The Government stand condemned because they have abandoned the high road—if they were ever on it—and have taken the low road. They stand condemned because they meekly acquiesced in agreeing to a system and a strategy about which they had no prior notice and no consultation within NATO and with our allies. The Government stand condemned because all they can do now is grub around on their hands and knees on the sidewalk scratching about for a few soiled and tainted greenbacks.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): In the midst of what is agreed to be an important and serious debate, I was astonished to hear the overblown language of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). It is clear that on the Opposition Front Bench we have not one, but two Welsh windbags.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) asked about the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I know that he would have liked to take part in this important debate, but he is accompanying Her Majesty the Queen on her state visit to Nepal, and that date was in his diary long before the Labour party decided to have this SDI debate.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) implied that three of the four Camp David points agreed in December 1984 between President Reagan and the Prime Minister, which remain the basis of the Government's policy and which have recently been reaffirmed by the State Department, have already been broken. That is not so. The United States research programme and our participation in it is at the heart of the debate. The first Camp David point, which the State Department subsequently reaffirmed, is that the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority, but to maintain the balance, taking account of Soviet developments. It underlines the need to continue the research effort in the West in order to match and to hedge against the well-established Soviet programme.
The Soviet programme is long-standing and extensive. There has been research by the United States over the same period, but it is a simple fact, which the House will recognise, that scientists will continue to investigate new technologies. The human mind cannot be prevented from thinking, inventing, exploring and expanding the potential of the future. Perhaps this potential will never be realised, or perhaps it will be fully implemented to the greater good of the international community, but in any case the process will continue. Surely, in a democratic system like ours, our people and our researchers and scientists cannot be prevented from being involved.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: No. Another debate is about to begin. It would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides that I should not give way. The only reason why I do not give way is that a Labour-inspired debate is about to begin.
The technology that we are debating is at the forefront of knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), in his powerful speech, said that the United Kingdom must be involved in this type of technology if it is to remain an advanced industrial nation. We certainly should not underestimate the benefits of such research for contracts and jobs for this country. Two SDI contracts have already been concluded following signature of the memorandum of understanding, and others are nearing signature. I have to tell the right hon. Member for Llanelli that, for reasons of confidentiality, the House will understand why I cannot go into further detail.
The contract signed by Ferranti, Heriot Watt university and other organisations in the future will undoubtedly foster the prospects of additional jobs in high technology industries. I was surprised and pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East say during a television broadcast at the weekend that he would not object to British researchers becoming involved in the US programme. Precisely a year ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed the same sentiment, although perhaps more enthusiastically, to the United States Congress. Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman cavil today at the Government's approach? I realise that a great soul like him—Emerson's words—has simply nothing to do with consistency.

Mr. Healey: We cannot and should not try to prevent companies or individuals from working in the American programme if they wish to do so. However, I object to the Government encouraging British scientists to leave programmes, such as the Alvey programme, which are vital to our future, to work in American defence industries, where the results of their researches may not be available for commercial use.

Mr. Renton: That is an area in which the right hon. Gentleman's little knowledge is very dangerous. We are at the beginning of an interesting phase in which involvement in the development of this technology—whether or not it comes to anything beyond the research stage—is important for key British companies. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who is an ex-junior Defence Minister. I wish that he could persuade the ex-Secretary of State to his view.
The Government's approach is favoured by our allies. I must tell the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the Germans and the Italians are already well advanced in considering participation. A German team, led by the Economics Minister, was recently in Washington, and they are moving towards a decision. Equally, the French have made it clear that while they do not wish to participate as a Government, private companies are free to do so.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about technology sharing with the Soviet Union. The Americans have spoken of such collaboration, and President Reagan has envisaged technology being shared at an appropriate stage as offensive forces are reduced. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East dismisses

that idea as impracticable. He is entitled to his opinion. The President has been steadfast in his view, and, given the choice between the right hon. Gentleman's judgment and belief in the President's sincerity, I know which I would choose. Of course, that stage has not yet arrived, and may not be reached for many years. However, to dismiss it as impracticable is a sad reflection of the traditional ostritch-like tactics of the Opposition.
The Americans have made an equally far-sighted offer that the two sides join in an open laboratory arrangement and provide information on their research programmes and facilities for mutual benefit. The Russians have not yet responded, but we hope that they will. As many who have spoken in the debate have said, the time is ripe for new initiatives. That approach could lead to a breakthrough on verification—one of the core elements in any successful arms control agreement.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that the SDI could be the rock on which the disarmament talks founder. That is clearly the Soviet position. The USSR says that if the United States does not abandon its research programme it may not agree to cut its nuclear forces. Is that acceptable, or even logical? I believe that it is neither. For years, while research into ballistic missile defence-related technology has been taking place in both countries, neither side has postulated that force reductions were dependent upon stopping such research. The Russians signed and ratified SALT I and the ABM treaties in 1972. In 1979 they welcomed and signed the SALT II agreement. They re-entered negotiations — albeit belatedly—on nuclear forces in the 1980s. Yet during all that time, research continued. Did they, on those grounds, refuse to participate? They did not.
There can be no reason in principle why the work by both sides, which has been in progress for some time, should suddenly, at the Soviet whim, become a stumbling block to arms control agreements. For its part, the US has made it clear that the SDI research programme will be conducted in full conformity with the provisions of the ABM treaty and other legal obligations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) both for his important speech and for his statement —with which I agree—that there is no conflict between the SDI and the ABM treaty, at least for the next few years and while research continues. If the SDI yields positive results, the United States will, after consulting its allies, consult and negotiate with the Soviet Union. Its aim in those exchanges would be to establish how deterrence could be enhanced through a greater reliance by both sides on defensive systems.
If we are to move towards a mix of offensive and defensive systems, the Americans want any transition to be a co-operative process with the Russians—hence the importance of negotiating about deployments. However, the results of research, and therefore of any such negotiations, may well be many years away. At Geneva, in the meantime, the Americans have already called for bilateral dialogue about the way in which offensive and defensive forces relate. The Russians appear reluctant to take up that offer, but if they seek more clarity about the strategic future that dialogue could help them.
I stress that the purpose of the Western alliance remains wholly defensive. We have pledged ourselves never to use any weapons other than in response to an attack. Those weapons exist to deter the potential aggressor. Given our overall defensive purpose, the attractions of a world in


which defences may come to play a greater part in maintaining deterrence are understandable. That point was well and clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The results of US and Soviet research will not be known for many years. The debate on stategic stability and defence will, meanwhile, continue. We accept and welcome that. There are questions to be asked and, at the appropriate time, to be answered.
Mr. Gorbachev's recent proposals are disappointing in some areas, because part of his position remains unchanged. However, there may prove to be new and interesting elements, and at least the Soviet leadership may now be prepared to do business at Geneva. That is where its intentions must be tested and its rhetoric converted into concrete results. I shall be going to Geneva next week to address the conference on disarmament. I expect to meet both the US negotiating team and the Soviet representatives. I shall tell them that the Government applaud their efforts and look forward to their success.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that the Liberals would vote against the Government amendment and for the Labour motion. What will the SDP do? Its Members have been conspicuous by their absence. However, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said on 12 June:
Let us have research and development by all means."—[Official Report, 12 June 1985; Vol. 80 c. 936.]
It will he interesting to see whether there is a split in the alliance over its defence policy. If so, it will not be the first time, and it will not be the last.
The other thing that has distinguished the debate is the virulent anti-Americanism of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East implied that the SDI research was in some sense anti-British. What has come over instead has been the typical anti-Americanism of the Labour party. In a speech to the Dutch Labour party last Friday, the leader of the Labour party reaffirmed his total opposition to the deployment of cruise missiles in Holland, thus rejecting that part of the offensive nuclear shield which has been NATO policy since 1979. Today the Labour party will vote against research and defensive systems. If it were to have its way, that would indeed be the shameful and humiliating position for the United Kingdom of which the right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke. If Labour were ever to be in government again, Britain would indeed be left to go naked into the conference chamber. It is for that reason that I hope the House will vote overwhelmingly against the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 272.

Division No. 79]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blair, Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beith A. J.
Campbell, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale





Canavan, Dennis
Leighton, Ronald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Litherland, Robert


Cartwright, John
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Clelland, David Gordon
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McGuire, Michael


Cohen, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Coleman, Donald
McKelvey, William


Conlan, Bernard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Nellist, David


Eadie, Alex
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Faulds, Andrew
Park, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pavitt, Laurie


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Penhaligon, David


Forrester, John
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Radice, Giles


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Golding, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gould, Bryan
Robertson, George


Gourlay, Harry
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Rooker, J. W.


Hancock, Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ryman, John


Haynes, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sheerman, Barry


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Johnston, Sir Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Kennedy, Charles
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lambie, David
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lamond, James
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James






Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Wainwright, R.
Wilson, Gordon


Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Woodall, Alec


Wareing, Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Weetch, Ken



Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes


White, James
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Ron Davies




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Farr, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fletcher, Alexander


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, William
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Best, Keith
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Churchill, W. S.
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hickmet, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Corrie, John
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Crouch, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)





Hunter, Andrew
Norris, Steven


Irving, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jessel, Toby
Parris, Matthew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Pawsey, James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Key, Robert
Porter, Barry


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powley, John


Knowles, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knox, David
Price, Sir David


Lamont, Norman
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lang, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Renton, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lightbown, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ryder, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lyell, Nicholas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mather, Carol
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mellor, David
Trippier, David


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Waddington, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wall, Sir Patrick


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wilkinson, John


Mudd, David
Wood, Timothy


Neale, Gerrard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Nelson, Anthony



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Newton, Tony
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,


That this House takes note of the extensive Soviet research effort in ballistic missle defence; agrees that the Strategic Defence Initiative research programme is prudent in the light of this effort; and welcomes the participation of United Kingdom industry and research institutions in that programme.

Private Tenants

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move,
That this House asserts the right of private tenants to a secure home in good repair at a reasonable rent free from harassment or neglect, the right to buy from a non-residential absentee landlord, the right to manage for both tenants and leaseholders of flats and the right collectively to buy the freehold for leaseholders of flats; calls for a review of rent regulation so as to close loopholes in the Rent Act; recognises the need to further improve privately rented property; and notes that the Government has savaged public housing programmes and now contemplates the end of socialist rent control.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Rooker: This debate will obviously be short and I shall not abuse the privilege of kicking off by making an excessively long speech.
This debate is as much about decent housing, choice and fairness as the recent Second Reading debate on the Housing and Planning Bill. About 2 million families remain in private tenancies. Their rights are few and need to be strengthened. They should have the right to a secure home, but many have not.
As an extension of choice, private tenants should have the right to buy from absentee landlords. By its nature, the scheme cannot be as uniform as that in the private sector, in which there are exceptions even today, but as in the public sector the majority of tenants will be included in the scheme.
Minimum standards should be set in the private sector which, if not met, would give tenants the right to require a nominated housing association or in some cases a local authority to buy out the existing landlord — for the purpose of action, not inaction, as we are not interested in property passing from one landlord to another and remaining in a dilapidated state. The new rights, of course, would not apply to people letting all or part of their own home, but only to genuine absentee landlords.
Private tenants who choose—I emphasise that word — to remain tenants should have the same rights as those that the Labour party proposes for council tenants to control the management of their homes, especially blocks of flats.
Private tenants also require a new legal right to temporary accommodation while repairs or improvements are carried out. This should not be an aid to landlords to winkle out secured tenants but a positive legal right so that tenants have the security and certainty of knowing that they will be returning to their homes.
If anyone doubts that that new right is required, I should make it clear that Rachmanism is alive and well in 1986 and being operated by Riverside Property Services, 16A Cazenove road, London N16. Late last year, that company purchased No. 38 Mirabel road, SW6, in the Fulham area of London. Two flats in the house were occupied by secured tenants. The property is now being improved with the aid of a council grant. The landlord persuaded the tenants of the first floor flat to leave, but Mrs. Edith Ashby, a 76-year-old widow whom I visited on Monday, and a secured tenant, is now having her home rebuilt


around her. There is no heating, no electricity, no bathroom and no security. Her furniture has been piled up in a room and covered with plastic sheeting.
No offer of temporary accommodation was made to Mrs. Ashby and she was told that the work would take four days. That was three weeks ago. She was offered £5,000 to leave, but refused because she wanted to stay in her home, so the landlord simply left her there and sent the building contractor in—a classic case of harassment of an elderly lady to get her out of her secure tenancy.

Mr. John Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I know that I may antagonise and annoy Conservative Members, but this is a short debate and in the interests of others who wish to speak I do not intend to give way to anyone.
After the intervention of Nick Raynsford, director of the SHAC London Housing Aid Centre, the landlord offered to let Mrs. Ashby put her bed in a room in the first floor flat. She now also has her cooker and television, but the conditions in which she is expected to live are obscene and a scandal in 1986. Potential buyers of the first floor flat are given the key to walk off the street willy-nilly into the home in which Mrs. Ashby is now trying to live. If ever there was an example showing that reform is needed, that is it.
It is well known that there is widespread evasion of the Rent Acts. Evasion takes place daily, and there is evidence that more than half the re-lets fall outside the protection of the Rent Acts. When the Select Committee investigated four years ago, the evidence showed that private sector rents would at least double if controls were removed. I gave the Minister notice of this question a week ago. Is that assessment still valid?
Ministers blame the Rent Acts for empty property, but they give no figures..In 1977, when there were 550,000 empty homes in the private sector — the figure is virtually the same today—research suggested that only 8,000 to 31,000 out of more than 500,000 empty homes were empty as a result of the Rent Act. After the infamous Rent Act 1957, which was supported by the Liberals at that time, homes for renting disappeared faster than before—250,000 in 1961 compared with 180,000 in 1956. We want the Rent Acts to be strengthened, not weakened.

Mr. Butterfill: 

Mr. Rooker: Very interesting. I look forward to the hon. Member's speech.
We want the Rent Act to be strengthened, not weakened. All tenants and licensees of non-resident landlords should have security of tenure, except when a genuine short-term let has been registered with a local housing authority, such as holiday lets and student lets.
Before I come to Conservative plans to abolish rent control—they clearly exist—I shall deal very briefly with two aspects of our policy so that there can be no misunderstanding among those who wish to invest in rented housing.
First, we support shared ownership where there is and can be an element of private renting. It was, after all, invented by a Labour local authority in Birmingham as a half-and-half scheme, but, like many good ideas from local government, it has been taken on board by central

Government and ruined. They also ruined enveloping. We want this form of tenure to flourish, and we would arrange the necessary guarantees to encourage investment. That is missing at the moment. The full opportunities of shared ownership, whether on a 50:50 or on a 25:75 basis have never been explored or exploited as a form of tenure by individuals or indeed by institutions.
The second aspect is assured tenancies. They operate outside the Rent Acts, with a landlord approved by the Secretary of State. They apply now only to newly constructed dwellings. We have no plans to abolish this form of tenancy. Our policy document, "Homes for the future", makes no reference to assured tenancies and that can be taken to mean that we will maintain the system. Although it was brought in by the Conservatives, they, not the Opposition, have effectively killed it off with high interest rates, high land prices and, above all, the removal of capital allowances in the 1984 Budget.
We would prefer for example, that the moneys from British workers' pension funds were invested in assured tenancy homes rather than exported to create jobs abroad. We would want homes to be built and rented under the assured tenancy scheme. I make that quite clear.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No.
I make our stance quite clear so there can be no confusion outside. That is a point which was made last autumn and which I understand needs making from the Dispatch Box.
Even with the evidence of the Rent Act 1957, the Government want to decontrol rents. When will they do it? Two million families have the right to know. We want to make it quite clear tonight that the Labour party will oppose the abolition of rent control. We will reimpose controls at the first opportunity.
I shall quote some examples of attempts by the Conservative party to rewrite history and change opinion on this subject. I start with a quotation from the other place, which has been quite active on this in the past few years. On 23 June 1982, Tory peers were falling over themselves to call for the abolition of rent control. The Government spokesman at the time was sympathetic. A year later, on 10 October 1983, a Bill to abolish rent control was introduced and debated in the other place. Influential Tories such as Lord Harris of High Cross—it is no good anyone arguing that he is not an influential Tory—

Mr. Ian Gow: He is a Cross Bencher.

Mr. Rooker: Ah, but listen to what I have to say. In my book, being a Cross Bencher does not mean that one cannot be a Tory. Lord Harris and Social Democratic peers queued up to call for abolition, and the Government spokesman said:
The Government have some sympathy with the points of view expressed by … Lord Harris of High Cross and by other noble Lords"—[Official Report House of Lords, 10 November 1983; Vol. 444, c. 1028.]
They were calling for the abolition of rent controls. Just one month later, at the Conservative party conference, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), as he will remember because he was then the Minister for Housing, spoke of the
need to re-examine the private rented sector".


A few months later, on 2 March, in a debate in this place on a motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the Minister who is to reply tonight, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) whether the Government would return to rent decontrol as it was under the 1957 Act. My hon. Friend could not get a straight answer from the Minister. All that we got was:
We are examining all legislation that affects private renting … We must try to establish conditions in which investors and landlords have the confidence … to commit resources".—[Official Report, 2 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 553–4.]
We are entitled to ask what has been happening since.
On 9 October 1984, the nation got the personal manifesto of the chairman of the Conservative party at a fringe meeting of the Selsdon group. He said:
I think there is at least a good chance that the great inflation, like all its predecessors, is coming to an end. If that is indeed so —and we are brave enough at some time in the future to reform the Rent Acts—some interesting consequences might follow. Rented housing—homes for hire—might well compete with houses to buy. The latter would have lost their attraction as hedges against inflation. And positive real interest rates could narrow the rent/mortgage differential.
What was that other than an invitation—

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: A good speech.

Mr. Rooker: A good speech, yes, effectively calling for the abolition of rent control.
In November that year, the then Secretary of State, at the annual conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council, said that he wanted
a bipartisan reform of the Rent Act".
Presumably the bipartisan approach to the state earnings- related pension scheme was still fresh in his mind. Later that month, the Minister for Housing, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, wrote to me saying:
we have been looking at ways we might stimulate the contribution of this sector".
He continued:
Parliament would be informed in the usual way".
That is the end of the bipartisan approach.
In May 1985, there was an extremely interesting piece from the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Horden) in the Daily Telegraph. It was long, well thought out and carefully argued. His final sentence read:
To repeal the Rent Acts would be the most important single measure the Government could take.
He is a highly respected influential thinker on the Tory Back Benches. He knows what he is talking about when money is involved.
Last summer, we got a string of leaks about the Queen's Speech. It was said in the Financial Times, the paper which reported most of the leaks best of all, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne had indeed convinced the Prime Minister that this was the course to follow. Other senior Ministers obviously prevailed. I have to put on record the telling paragraph in a piece by Mr. Peter Riddell, who wrote:
The discussion on the issue highlights the personal style of decision making in the current government which by-passes normal channels and the Cabinet structure.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): Ridiculous.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister says that Mr. Riddell's assertion is ridiculous. We now come to the present Minister, and his very important speech of 9 February.

Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman twice and, as an act of courtesy, and only to him, I shall give way.

Mr. Gow: I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman. I had the advantage of being present at these discussions, which was an advantage not conferred on the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jack Straw: Or on Peter Riddell.

Mr. Gow: The decision about this matter was taken perfectly properly and perfectly normally and there was a full discussion of it by the Cabinet.

Mr. Rooker: So there was a discussion and we are told that the Cabinet threw it out. The Cabinet obviously looked over the abyss of rent control and said, "This is not a runner."
I come back to the speech of the present Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, who on 9 February said:
Reviving the private rented sector isn't going to be easy. We will need to gain the confidence of tenants and landlords. And it cannot be done now. There is little point in pushing forward major legislation halfway through a Parliamentary term, because of the destructive attitudes which the Labour party is sure to take. But I hope that we will remove the Socialist controls that keep rents at artificially low levels—for new tenants, not existing tenants".
The word "But" indicates that this will happen before rather than after the next general election. That is the clear implication of what the Minister said. Initially he was saying that major legislation could not be introduced before the next election because my hon. Friends and myself could put the kybosh on it, and he knows it. However, he hopes to remove the Socialist controls that keep rents at artificially low levels for new tenants. The chances are that before the next general election we will have rent decontrol for new tenants.
Two days after that speech there was an interesting supplementary question from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who asked:
In view of the fact that there is quite a lot of pressure now to improve the prospects in the private rented sector of housing"—
hon. Members will be aware of the kind of pressure that I have cited—
to make new housing stock available to the general public, and as the Housing Bill is in Committee, would it not be a good idea if some amendments were put forward and that the Government agreed to them?
All I need say is that on the last amendment that was moved yesterday morning the Government were defeated by 12 votes to five.
In reply to that question the Prime Minister said:
I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's supplementary question and his desire to increase the stock of houses in the private rented sector. That is something to which we must give our attention. Whether this comes within the long title of the Housing Bill"—
this is from a Member of Parliament of 30 years' standing—
is not for me to say."—[Official Report, 7 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 781.]
But Ministers can amend the long title of the Bill any time they want. In short, there is abundant evidence that the Conservatives are up to something in relation to rent control.
Being another person's landlord for a crude commercial profit is an unacceptable way of earning a living, and that


is why rent controls are required. The Conservative Member who said that the abolition of rent controls would be fine in the long run but that in the short run no Tory MPs would be left in London was speaking the truth.
The national average of private rented tenure is about 10 per cent.—it is now probably below that—

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Rooker: I shall not, because I am about to conclude.
The top six constituencies in the private rented sector are all in inner London. Fulham happens to be in sixth place. Unfortunately—I say that because we all regret the death of Martin Stevens—Fulham has no one here to represent it tonight. But at 33 per cent., Fulham has three times the national average of constituents in the private rented sector. What are the Government planning for them after the next election that they are not prepared to say beforehand? The people of Fulham are in a unique position to test the popularity of the Conservative call for freedom to raise rents—perhaps to double or triple them —in the private sector. They demand an answer, and so does this House.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
asserts the need for a healthy and reviving private rented sector with an adequate supply of sound homes to rent as being in the best interests of tenants and landlords and those looking for accommodation; further asserts the need for improved statutory safeguards to ensure proper management of privately owned blocks of flats; and notes that provision for capital expenditure on housing was increased in the Public Expenditure White Paper.".
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made a characteristically forceful speech to which I enjoyed listening. In particular, I welcome what he said about shared ownership. Perhaps in Committee we shall be able to explore further exactly what he meant. He also gave a clear assurance on assured tenancies.
My first principle is that any Housing Minister, from whatever party he or she comes, must surely want to see that all existing housing stock is as fully used as possible.

Dr. John Cunningham: It depends on the condition.

Mr. Patten: Of course it does. Empty homes, whether in the public or private sectors, are a waste. Local authorities estimate —these are the only estimates we have —that in England, 545,000 private sector homes were empty in April 1985. Nearly 100,000 of them were in London, where the problem of homelessness is greatest. Many of those homes, but not all—even some needing refurbishment—could be let to people who need them if landlords were not inhibited by the effects of the Rent Acts.
The private rented sector once provided homes for the vast majority of the British people, but that sector has been in decline for about 70 years since 1914. As recently as 1951, there were 6 million privately rented dwellings in England. Now there are perhaps only 1·7 million, and the number is falling fast. While we and the country at large

welcome the huge rise in home ownership that has followed, it is a sad fact that in Britain alone of the major western countries there is no vigorous private rented sector for those who need it.
For example, in West Germany 36 per cent. of households rent from private landlords. In France the figure is 32 per cent., and in the United States it is 33 per cent. In Britain it is just 9 per cent. In those other countries, private renting is not the major political issue that it is in the United Kingdom. We must ask why that is so. To me it seems wrong to concentrate in the United Kingdom on two forms of tenures—owner-occupation and council renting—with precious little in between. We may not be able to agree on how to fill that gap, but it is wrong. The reasons for the decline are complex, but statutory controls are one of the reasons why we face this problem.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall by and large follow the line of the hon. Member for Perry Barr and give way as little as possible. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on many occasions in Standing Committee tomorrow, just as I gave way to him yesterday in Standing Committee and shall no doubt do so on many occasions in the future—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment tells me to steady on, and I shall do so.
I recognise, of course, that in the past, the private rented sector has been a political football. The history of attempts to achieve a political concensus on the issue is not exactly encouraging. We are probably all at fault, and I would be the first to admit it. People will say—the hon. Member for Perry Barr did so tonight—that decontrol was tried in 1957 and that it did not work. They will say that the sector declined very fast and that Rachmanism grew. But in 1986 we must accept that history need not repeat itself. We can learn the lessons of post-1957—I am prepared to do so—one of which, incidentally, was that the accelerated decline of the private rented sector in the late 1950s was more the result of slum clearance than of rent decontrol. The hon. Member for Perry Barr is to some extent under a misapprehension. In 1986, the sector is very different from what it was in 1957. Most private sector tenants are now single people rather than families.
Indeed, tenants are now much better protected by law against harassment then they were in the 1950s. No serious observer of the housing scene now believes that the public sector can provide all the resources necessary to tackle our housing problems. We must mobilise institutional and private resources as well to help meet housing need, particularly in our great cities. We should all try together to build at least that measure of consensus about the future of the private rented sector in which there is at least a role for building societies, major institutions, the Housing Corporation and the housing associations. If we can get that consensus that is a good start. There may also be a role for the private, responsible landlord, but if we could agree on the first measures, I should be happy to get that tonight.
In response to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I make it clear beyond any doubt that we have no intention of removing the protection enjoyed by existing tenants. That mistake was made in 1957. The removal of the statutory controls of existing tenancies at the top end of the market


led to widespread evictions by the involuntary landlords—those who were not landlords by choice and took the opportunity to obtain vacant possession and sell out. However, if in future we want to encourage the private sector to make unused accommodation available for renting and to invest in accommodation for rent, it is essential that, for new lettings, rents should provide reasonable economic returns.
I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will note what I am about to say because I am responding to his question. The Government have taken no decisions on what form any legislation to reduce controls over new tenancies should take. We are not proposing in this Parliament to introduce major legislation to recast the Rent Act. We are ready to listen and promote argument about what could and should be done. With that in mind, I was flattered to find my speech to the Young Conservatives gathered in Blackpool a couple of Sundays ago subjected to such interesting and close textual criticism and exegesis about what a comma here and a "but" there meant.
It was a curious experience for me, for the first time in my life, to walk on to a political platform and find balloons going up, paper darts, chanting. I could not understand why my appearance was the cue for such excitment in the hall. I was then told that they were waiting for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is not with us this evening.
I said in my speech about the Rent Acts:
The need for reform is clear from the degrading scramble for accommodation which young people suffer in London and other big cities. It is clear when the law makes it senseless for landlords to let property except under the most restrictive conditions. And it is emphasised by the need to avoid the bizarre and socially damaging polarisation in our society between owner occupiers, and tenants in council occupation.
For some time, the Government have been concerned about the particular problems faced by the 500,000 or so households living in privately owned, long leasehold flats —two thirds of them are long leaseholders. Evidence has emerged of serious management problems in this sector, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the former Minister for Housing and Construction, set up in February 1984 the Nugee committee — under Mr. Nugee QC — to examine the issues. The committee presented its cogent, coherent and important report in November 1985. It has confirmed that there are serious problems in a significant proportion of blocks and has made numerous recommendations on how the Government should get ahead and tackle the problems. It is a complex report that deals with complex issues with major ramifications for many parts of the law that cannot be dealt with by a little amendment here and there.
The report throws up some interesting questions. First, what should the relationship between freeholder, tenants and managing agents be and what procedures should there be for appointing such agents? What remedies should the tenants have where the freeholder is not carrying out his obligations to maintain the block? Are there circumstances in which it would be right to allow long leaseholders collectively to buy the freehold, with for instance the important suggestion of a right of first refusal when the landlord wishes to sell? These are among the important issues raised by the report. I am considering them in consultation with my colleagues. One of our considerations is whether the reform of certain aspects goes far enough.

Mr. John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is referring to the important 53 recommendations of the Nugee committee on which, as he knows, I had the honour and pleasure to serve. Does he agree that such recommendations must be brought into legislation as soon as possible, and will he refute the dishonesty of the Westminster, North Labour party, which says in a printed leaflet:
Worst of all, the Government has refused to implement even the modest recommendations of the Nugee report.

Mr. Patten: I am happy to refute that — it is nonsense and has no foundation. The Government are looking at the recommendations of the Nugee committee, on which my hon. Friend served with such distinction, and we are intent on moving forward as quickly as we can in putting the most significant parts of the recommendations into effect and on some occasions perhaps even going further than the committee might have recommended.
I emphasise the role that the private rented sector can play in meeting housing needs if it is given the chance to do so. A vigorous private rented sector would widen housing choice, increase mobility and help to reduce homelessness. Empty flats and houses, whether in the public or private sector, are an affront to the homeless. With the help of all the Opposition parties, we can achieve some of these goals.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr and his colleagues have a particularly heavy social responsibility in looking at the future of privately rented flats and houses. I hope that we shall not have automatic immediate reactions with pledges to repeal this or that at the drop of a hat. The situation is far too serious for such a reaction. I hope that all Opposition Parties will open-mindedly join the debate, which I welcome because it is so important. However, even if they do, the Government cannot accept the motion.

Mr. John Cartwright: I welcome the Minister's suggestion that we should try to reach as much agreement as we can about the future of private rented property. Both sides of the House are aware that there is a need for more private rented homes. Owner-occupation may be a wonderful system for a great many people, but we all understand that it is not possible for some people, on sheer financial grounds, and in any case it is not appropriate for everybody.
In the Minister's famous speech on 9 February, I notice that he correctly pointed out that far too many young people are being pushed into owner-occupation far too early in life, simply because there is not enough rented property available. Equally, at the other end of the age scale, many elderly owner-occupiers would much rather be rid of the responsibility of owning their own homes if there were a rented sector into which they could move. We must provide more choice in housing.
There is probably a broad agreement on another matter. Local authorities cannot be left to be the only providers of rented accommodation. The policy of municipalisation is dead. At one time I supported it, but I do not any longer because of sheer practical experience. It is that which has probably killed off the policy of municipalisation.
There are the obvious management problems which many local authorities have in dealing with large numbers of properties. In any case, there is the problem of an unhealthy lack of choice if there is total monopoly in the


hands of the local authority as the only providers of rented accommodation. That involves the bureaucratic rationing system, which we all know about and which we want to get away from. So there is undoubtedly a case for providing an alternative source of rented homes.
I part company from the Minister when he appears to believe that the solution is to try to breathe new life into the traditional private landlord system. First, the economics are against it as a means of providing any major improvement in the situation. To give developers a reasonable return on their capital investment would inevitably produce rents which would price the accommodation way beyond the means of a great many tenants, particularly those who are forced into private renting simply because they cannot afford to buy a home of their own.
I and my colleagues in the alliance reject the call for the deregulation of rents. We cannot believe that it can produce a tremendous explosion in the availability of private rented property. In the short term it is much more likely to drive up rents and produce more problems of homelessness.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps overestimating the price of new property coming on the market at unregulated rents, but will he take into account the fact that people would not be priced out of the market, because housing benefit would be available to the low-paid?

Mr. Cartwright: I shall come to that in a moment. There is a cut-off level for housing benefit. One cannot simply decide to rent as expensive a property as one would like and let the housing benefit providers take up the slack. It does not work like that.
The second problem of trying to revitalise traditional private landlordism is the general atmosphere that surrounds it. Again I pay tribute to the Minister for recognising that problem. In his much quoted, now required reading, "changing gear" speech on 9 February he said that the Conservative party in facing the problem would have to
win the battle to make renting and landlordism respectable again.
I am glad that he recognises the difficulty. He will have an uphill struggle in trying to tackle that problem. It is not like the other campaigns on which his party has been successful. It is not like encouraging more belief in owner-occupation. It is not like getting the right to buy off the ground. Both those campaigns were flowing with the tide of public opinion, spurred along by the financial advantage of mortgage tax relief. The atmosphere surrounding private landlordism is a much more difficult one to break through.
That does not mean that we should let the present decline continue. The numbers of houses available for private renting continue to go down. I suspect that that is not so much because of the Rent Acts as other factors. The attraction of the capital gains to be made by a landlord who sells for owner-occupation, for example, is a major factor in steadily reducing the stock of private rented homes. The sheer fact of slum clearance also reduces the numbers available. So the steady reduction in the number of private rented homes increases pressure on council properties and waiting lists at a time when they are in no position to take up the extra demand.
We know that there is a steady decline in the condition of private rented property, and there is an excessive use of loopholes — the holiday lets, the non-exclusive licences and all those other devices which are now more common than ordinary lettings and which make life so difficult for the young seeking private accommodation.
There are alternative solutions, and one is the extension of the right to buy, which is mentioned in the Opposition's motion. When it comes to things like blocks of tenanted flats, which are often in a poor condition, I am not attracted by the individual's right to buy. That is not a credible way of tackling the problem. But I do not see why a housing association should not be given the right to buy from a private landlord if a majority of the tenants in the block of flats decide that that is what they would like to do. That might be a registered housing association, or the tenants in a block might get together to form their own housing association or co-operative.

Mr. John Patten: Would the hon. Gentleman also welcome the involvement of building societies if they became progressively involved in private renting?

Mr. Cartwright: I shall come to that in a moment.
The idea of the right to buy for housing associations would involve little, probably no, public sector investment in terms of providing the capital. Perhaps these would have to be loans or loan guarantees, and certainly there would be a need for straightforward assistance on repair, rehabilitation and improvement, but it would provide a much better solution than trying to give individual tenants a right to buy or enabling tenants, in the Minister's words "to negotiate with their landlords about the level of their rents."
I come now to the rather different approach which has been mentioned by both Front Bench spokesmen —building on the assured tenancy scheme. I thought that the assured tenancy scheme had the germ of a good idea. I welcomed what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said about the Labour party's attitude towards it, but there are three things wrong with that scheme. First, there is no effective Government investment in it. There was only the tax concession on the capital allowances and that, as we know, was removed in the Finance Act 1984, which effectively crippled the whole thing.
Secondly, the assured tenancy approach was limited to new building, and there is a crying need to encourage new private investment in the repair and rehabilitation of the existing private rented stock. Thirdly, there was no real basis of protection for tenants under the assured tenancy scheme. There was no protection against unreasonable eviction or rent rises.
However, there is a way forward involving the use of long-term index-linked mortgage arrangements. Building societies have found it possible to offer long-term index-linked mortgages and to on-lend the money at about a 4 per cent. real terms rate of interest. Index-linked mortgages offer an ideal way of funding that sort of activity, because rents tend to go up with the rate of inflation. Our calculations suggest that a £30,000 home financed in that way could be let at a rental of £44·50 a week. That is much higher than the fair rent level, but it is much less than the £70 a week or so which would be needed to service a £30,000 loan at a 12·5 per cent. interest rate. It is, however, clearly higher than the market can


stand, so there is a gap to be bridged between what is a reasonable return on capital for even long-term pension funds insurance money and things of that sort, and what fair rents can produce.
I cannot see why the Government should not seek to bridge that gap. If the Government provided a subsidy of 25 per cent. of the interest costs in the example that I have given, the rent of £44·50 would come down to £36 a week. Again that is high, but it is not unreasonable in many parts of the country. Alternatively, the Government could subsidise initial capital construction, although that is a less flexible approach. Clearly, even under my proposals, there would be a need to extend the high rent provisions of the housing benefit regulations to bring that sort of expensive housing within the reach of low-income families in the housing stress areas.
There is undoubtedly a cost to the Treasury in all this. I can see the Minister already nervously eyeing Treasury responses, but we already have public investment, through mortgage tax relief, in the owner-occupied sector. We already have substantial public investment in the traditional council sector. Therefore, I cannot see why there should not be some sensible public investment, used as leverage to obtain far larger private investment, in order to provide us with a new system of private rented accommodation. The tenants would have the benefit of approved landlords—housing associations, trusts and cooperatives and, yes, possibly approved private landlords if they could meet stringent standards of performance and ensure that they were treating their tenants decently and fairly. That does offer a way forward.
There is a measure of agreement here across a wide political spectrum. The Minister would be far better advised to tackle the problem in that way than to put back the clock and recreate 19th century private landlordism, which is going, and which ought not to be rescued.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I had a problem tonight because I had a clash of interests. A major meeting is taking place on my constituency on the future management of Hampstead Heath. I chose to be here because private tenancies are a subject on which I have been campaigning for 16 years. I strongly believe in the rights of those who live in mansion flats. My parents lived all their married lives in mansion flats. I lived the first 40 years of my life in typical inner London blocks, with highly reputable landlords, such as the Prudential and London County Freehold and Leasehold Properties—the old key flats. The flats had equally reputable managing agents.
Alas, that no longer happens. From about the beginning of the 1960s the position changed because of a combination of the effects of the Rent Acts since the first world war and other factors. On the scene came what I can only describe as disgraceful landlords, such as Freshwater, Mr. Stern and the Bergers, who had no concern for their tenants, and agents with just a concern for their fees. That feature is still very much with us. Tenants are concerned mainly about neglected maintenance and inflated and sometimes phoney service charges.
I have followed this cause since I became a Member in 1970. My first opportunity to do anything practical was in 1972, in the Housing Finance Bill, when I succeeded in carrying a new clause against the wishes of my party, with the Opposition's aid. The Government decided that they

would insert a clause, in better terms than my measure, to help tenants especially, with respect to the auditing and inspection of service charge accounts. That was a start, but it was not enough.
In 1974 we had an interesting and friendly Committee on the Housing Bill. Perhaps it was friendly because the Government did not have a majority on the Committee. We had long sittings. On 11 June 1974 the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) rebuffed my amendments. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I would refer to him in this debate, not in an unpleasant spirit, but in a spirit of chiding and regret. He said:
the kind of headings that I have indicated already would rank high in the review that I should wish to achieve with a view to future legislative and policy action." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 June 1974; c. 385.]
The right hon. Gentleman, supported by Mr. Douglas-Mann, the then Labour Member who became an SDP Member, agreed in a further debate that it was necessary to improve the position. Unfortunately, after that short Parliament, Labour having won the election, nothing happened. Between 1974 and 1979 there was a substantial Labour majority, but nothing happened.
It therefore fell to those of us who had a hand in drafting the 1979 housing legislation to do something. The right hon. Member for Brent, East pooh-poohed in a gentle way some proposals as being too difficult or needing further examination. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) and I were able to convince those who were advising us about drafting the Bill that these measures could be undertaken. Our provisions were therefore included in the Bill and we made a reasonable amount of progress on a variety of improvements.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that that part, like many other parts, of what became the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 was drafted by the previous Government, under whom I was Minister for Housing and Construction?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, in spite of having had the opportunity, he did little about service charges. Because I was not privy to the private papers of the Labour Government, I have no idea of exactly what happened. I can say only that the provision was not in a form that would have satisfied my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing or me that it would help tenants. I am not attacking the right hon. Member for Brent, East. I do so sometimes, but I would not dream of doing so when he is under threat.
A variety of measures need improvement. We have heard of the need to set up a sinking fund, but the problem is who will look after it. Certainly many of the managing agents who manage some of these properties could not be trusted with the administration of sinking funds. They or the owners would do a quick moonlight flit and the tenants who had paid their money would be left with nothing.
I begin to think that there is some co-operation throughout the House on the sale of blocks of flats. I have always believed that, if a landlord intends to sell his block of flats, the tenants should be given the right of first refusal. That provision is not yet law. Nugee talks about that, but pressure can make it actually happen.
A large block of property in Belsize Park in my constituency, which included houses and flats, was owned by the Church Commissioners. They were about to sell the


property for about £3 million to, I think, a Luxembourg or Channel Isles registered company. The tenants came to me. I made representations to the Church Commissioners, saying that their action was wrong and that they should give tenants the opportunity to purchase at the same price. Following a certain amount of pressure and public aggravation, the Church Commissioners agreed. The properties are now owned by the Belsize United Tenants Association. The tenants are their own landlords, and life is much better and happier. There may be difficulties, and one must consider how to overcome them, but we should not wait too long before saying that this policy is accepted across the whole political spectrum.
Tenants need to know the proper name and address of landlords and agents in the United Kingdom. I was unable to get that provision accepted. All too frequently, the landlord is abroad or there is a change of landlord or agent and the tenants cannot find the person on whom documents should be served. Nugee refers to that.
We need better managing agents. Between 1942 and 1952 I worked for a London firm of estate agents managing commercial and residential property. In those days managing agents were reputable and experienced and they knew what should be done to look after and to reconcile the joint interests of tenants and landlords. Most of them did that. I welcome the code of practice which the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has produced showing what responsibilities managing agents should have. Perhaps, like the Highway Code, one might need to make that code an adjunct to any legislation that results from Nugee's recommendations. We need tighter tendering for works so that tenants can match, if they wish, an estimate produced by the landlord.
Mr. Nugee, who is one of my distinguished constituents, was asked to chair the committee of inquiry on which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) served. The Committee made some interesting and useful comments. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction made two points clear. He knocked on the head the lie that the Government have rejected Nugee's recommendations. My hon. Friend said that action will be taken after he has carried out the necessary consultations.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: do not take too long. Too much thought paralyses action. He will find, if he has not already done so, that great barriers will be erected in the Department by officials and legal advisers. That is what happened in 1971, and since, and I suggest that the position has not changed. The officials will not act in this way for obstructive reasons. They will say, "Minister, this will be difficult." We have all seen such action. My hon. Friend should be his normal resolute self and state that this is the policy that he wants. It is amazing how quickly difficulties disappear and draft clauses appear once that is done.

Mr. Wheeler: As my hon. Friend has referred to civil servants in the Department of the Environment, will he concede that the work of the Nugee committee, which took place over many months, involved the wholehearted service of members of the Department of the Environment, who provided the secretariat? He may agree that their

learning experience was such that perhaps the advice to our hon. Friend the Minister is now of such quality that early results may flow.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am an eternal optimist. I was fascinated when I saw that we were to debate this subject. I realised that it would give my hon. Friend the Minister a chance to say something about the Nugee committee, and I hoped that there would be a useful exchange of views. I wondered why we were debating this subject in Opposition time. I thought perhaps the Opposition were at last concerned about private tenants. Alas, having been disillusioned on some occasions, I have been even more disillusioned today.
I have a news release from Walworth road from the Labour party campaign and communications directorate. It is dated February 18 and says:
Fulham housing cases to be raised in Parliament.
We are told:
Two cases of elderly women tenants living in appalling conditions, in privately rented homes in Fulham, will be raised during tomorrow's (Wednesday's) debate".
We have heard about one of the those elderly women, and we are to hear about Mrs. Griffiths from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr. (Mr. Rooker) spoke about this matter being taken up by a Mr. Raynsford, who was director of the Shelter Housing Aid Centre. Unfortunately, the news release is not quite as coy as that. It calls him the prospective Labour candidate in the forthcoming by-election. The cat is let out of the bag. If he is to be the candidate at the by-election, that document may have started his election expenses running. I think that that needs to be watched.
Those who live in Fulham or elsewhere know that the Labour party has done precious little for private tenants when it has had the chance. It had the opportunity on two occasions and did absolutely nothing. I hope that private tenants will not be conned—I do not think that they will be—into again thinking that the Labour party cares for them.
It is a pity that the three distinguished Labour Members, the hon. Members for Perry Barr, for Norwood, (Mr. Fraser) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), did not go to look at tenants living in deplorable conditions in Labour council flats and in flats where Labour councils have failed to spend the money allocated, such as Camden, which has squealed year upon year but which last year underspent its capital by £8 million and this year will underspend by £10 million or more.

Mr. John Patten: Or indeed failed to collect the rents, which is a characteristic of boroughs such as Camden, or Walsall, which has such a wretched record outside London.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that those matters will be put right on 8 May. I may have an entry in the "Guiness Book of Records" which I would like removed. It says that I am the only Conservative leader of the London borough of Camden. I should like to see that entry disappear on 8 May.
I believe that if the public realised the hypocrisy of the Labour party's policy document and the crocodile tears they have shed, they would realise that the only party that has ever done anything practical, not just made speeches, for tenants is the Conservative party.

Mr. Reg Freeson: I shall not follow the last part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), but I would like to make one or two observations on the main part of his speech which related to the problems of tenants of what are mostly called mansion blocks. They are primarily located in certain parts of inner London, some in my constituency, many in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in Paddington and Westminster.
I think that the hon. Gentleman overstated his criticism of past failure to act on this matter. It is perfectly true that only limited legislative reforms were introduced in the Housing Act 1972 with the backing of the then Labour Opposition, as he readily acknowledged. Further changes were introduced in the Housing Act 1974 and some were published in a Bill before the 1979 election, which fell with that election but which were picked up again in the Housing Act 1980. Therefore, there were certain legislative changes.
It is also true that when I was a Minister I found some of the difficulties of dealing with this area in law and in practice that have subsequently been experienced by Conservative Ministers. It is interesting to read and to hear references to the Nugee report. I welcome that report and its recommendations. I certainly hope that those recommendations will be built upon.
I can reveal that a similar study was attempted in-house in the Department of the Environment while I was a Minister. We were not inactive, but I came up against the genuine complexities and the kind of cautionary advice and noises to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That in-house report was nearing completion when the 1979 election was called.
I had hoped at that time, and announced not long before the 1979 election was called, that we would formulate a policy and legislate as soon as possible for what I described as collective-tenant purchase, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). I should like to see the recommendations built upon. I have to say quite bluntly that, after all the thinking, all the work and all the advocacy — no matter how difficult this area is — it is about time that a policy decision was taken at a time during the Session when legislation could be introduced. That was not the position in 1979.
The legislation should empower tenants to set up their own housing associations and at least have the first right of refusal when the property is up for sale, or empower them to commission a housing association with good management agents, experience and know-how to act on their behalf. I would take it further and say that if it is at all possible in law we should not leave it at the first right of purchase. It should be possible to build into the law the right of tenants, not just in mansion blocks but elsewhere, to purchase collectively the blocks of flats or groups of properties where there is bad management.
If I may reflect on the history, that idea was set out as a policy objective — it was never achieved — in the Labour party's 1973 programme document which preceded the 1974 election. It was based upon a paper that I prepared at that time.
I readily confess with hindsight —I have confessed long since—that what was then seen as a basic and sensible proposition posed many legal complexities. I

hope that those problems have now been dealt with and I urge that whatever else is done, the most radical measures would be to give those rights to tenants collectively, not just in mansion blocks, but elsewere too.
I am tempted to say that a similar right should be given to tenants in publicly owned flats where there is consistently bad or inadequate management. Tenants of local authority estates should have the right to purchase or bring in managing agents or a housing association to act on their behalf. This is not the first time that 1 have put that point.
If the Minister will concentrate on the general proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which was supported by the hon. Member for Woolwich, and will build on the assured tenancy policy to deal with the supply side of housing and leave well alone rent regulation and security of tenure, the threatened confrontation that we have detected from Bills in the other place and from speeches of various members of the Conservative party can be avoided.
I am not saying that there should be no reform of rent regulation and security of tenure; there is always scope for that. Confrontation emerges when there is an argument in favour of complete deregulation and, because of the reaction to that from the Opposition, there is a hauling into the trenches and the Government say, "Do not touch the Rent Acts because we fear a repeat of the 1957 experience." We must avoid that confrontation. There can still be argument, but it must be sensible and constructive.
From some quarters of the Conservative party in the past two or three years and, more significantly, recently we have seen the threat of complete deregulation emerging. It lies with the Government to act and put forward proposals in response to the spirit in which my hon. Friend spoke. The Government should concentrate on the supply side and improve assured tenancies.
If we were to rely upon anything remotely like deregulation of rents, we would have an increase in rents of three or four times in London — that is already happening in lettings which are outside the Rent Acts, which have been the most significant lettings in recent years. A great deal of evidence was presented to the Select Committee on the Environment in 1981 and 1982 to confirm what many of us suspected, that even if there were deregulation there would still be inadequate incentive for new investment in private sector rented housing. Witnesses came before us and some of them were strong advocates of decontrol. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will recall that, because he was a member of the Committee. Even the strongest advocates of decontrol, after our exchanges and the study of the papers they put to the Committee, accepted that even with such rent increases in the private sector, there would still not be the return required to solve the problem of bad conditions and inadequate supply.
That view was so widespread that it was included in the report's conclusions. I shall not quote them because of lack of time.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for lack of interest in investment is the fear that the Labour party might reintroduce controls? We must contrast our experience with that of other countries.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is making the usual generalised point. That was not the reason that was given.


I am not saying that there were no criticisms. There were criticisms of the controls. I am examining the view expressed by those who strongly advocated complete decontrol and who projected the financial implications and the kind of rent levels. They were not considering what might happen five or 10 years later with changes in legislation. Those people accepted that the return would be insufficient to encourage investment, even if there were a completely free market.
I make that point strongly because advocates of the free market often argue that deregulation would produce the desired results. There is little or no evidence to support that in London. I do not speak for other parts of the country because, in any case, the proportion of rented accommodation elsewhere is different from that in London, and I do not think that it is significant.
The answer lies not in trying to go backwards but in trying to evolve new forms of ownership and management — housing associations — and developing the assured tenancy approach. Until the matter can be resolved with the Treasury, there will be no going forward. I said privately to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr a moment ago that, apart from the rights and wrongs of decontrol, there is one main reason why the Government do not introduce changes along the lines he proposed. It is that the Treasury knows that if the Government were to try to do so they would be virtually compelled to change the housing benefit scheme to provide for a sharp increase in rents. A huge Budget provision would be required.
The main obstacle to the proposals is not political; it lies with the Treasury. Let us consider the present position. Housing associations have been pleading with the Treasury for the past four years to be allowed to make up for the cuts in public expenditure by drawing private finance into investment in rented accommodation. I am not talking about the marginal new initiatives on part ownership, leasehold for the elderly and such schemes. I am talking about fair rent housing. There is a rule-convention which the Treasury applies. It says that if private money is brought in beside public money, then, because public money is involved, the remainder must be classified as public expenditure. Do not ask me to understand what is beyond understanding. That is wholly unintelligible. The Treasury is blocking the opportunity to put millions of pounds into the provision of rented accommodation via housing associations. It is preventing the spreading of investment.
The only way to get confidence for the policy development outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is to break the present blockage. If the Government would allow private resources to go towards the provision of rented housing now, to provide thousands of new homes now, we could be confident of the assured tenancy provisions and alternative forms of housing management and ownership which lie between local authority housing and owner-occupation, and we could develop such a policy. Despite detailed differences, we might find common ground. The responsibility lies with the Government immediately to remove the obstacle to private money coming to housing associations to provide more rented accommodation which is urgently needed in our inner city areas.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Six hon. Members are still hoping to speak in the debate and time is getting short, so I appeal for brief speeches.

9 pm

Mr. Michael Lord: As someone who has played many sports at one time or another, I have learnt the hard way that it is essential to keep one's eye on the ball. Once a player takes his eye off the ball he is lost. In the context of this debate, the ball is the need to house the homeless.
Let me say at once that I believe that the Labour party means well. Labour Members start with the right intentions and with their eyes on the ball, anxious to house those in need. Unfortunately, their views become clouded and twisted by other factors, such as their dislike of landlords, capitalism, the profit motive, or whatever, and they lose sight of the central issue—they take their eyes off the ball. They become more interested in hounding the rich than in housing the poor. Tenants and would-be tenants become pawns in a political game.
A famous politician said:
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing big men down. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by citing class hatred.
Those are the words of Abraham Lincoln, spoken well over 100 years ago, yet they are timeless. They are as true today as, they were then.
Perhaps I could add to that quotation some words of my own: "You cannot provide more accommodation for those who need it by attacking those who provide it. You cannot force people, through legislation, to do things against their interest, because they will not do it. Nor should we expect them to, nor if they are honest with this House would any Member of the Opposition."
More housing will be provided in the private sector only if tenants and landlords are allowed to benefit. Indeed, they can both benefit, providing the matter is approached reasonably. The word "reasonable" occupies a central position in the law of this land. Many cases are decided on what is judged to be "reasonable" in a given set of circumstances. At first sight, the word seems to be a vague one on which to depend for so much of our law-making, yet its meaning is well understood, and, by and large, that system works. It works so well that in my more idealistic moments I sometimes wish that that could be the only law that we needed to deal with each other in all the various aspects of life. If that is a flight of fancy—sadly, I am afraid that it is—I am sure that we should all agree that at present we have far too much detailed legislation.
We are increasingly trying to legislate, not merely to provide a broad framework within which people can live and work, but to attempt in a detailed way to tell people how they should treat each other, behave towards one another and, almost, what they should think of each other. We are attempting the impossible, the unnecessary, the restricting and in many ways the deeply damaging. People just will not do it. They react against it and they are frequently repelled by the idea of being told by the state in such detail what they can or cannot do in circumstances where they rightly believe that they should be trusted to be reasonable. In those circumstances, people who would normally be reasonable, are not. Although that is sad, I find it difficult to blame them.
Clearly, there will always be a minority of bad landlords just as there will be some bad tenants. But to put


the whole of the private sector into a straitjacket in an attempt to eliminate problems is a ridiculous state of affairs. We cannot legislate in that way, because it simply will not work.
We must trust people to deal fairly with each other. Why cannot we do so? If we are saying that that is impossible, what a tragic state our country and our people must be in. I do not believe that to be true. I have more faith in my fellow countrymen than that, whether they are landlords or tenants.
Perhaps what is needed is for this House of Commons to set an example, to say that we can trust people to deal reasonably with each other and to encourage them to do so within the broadest possible framework. Unless we can do this I am sure that too many landlords will leave their houses empty and that too many of the homeless will remain homeless. This House owes it to the homeless to keep its eye on the ball.

Mr. David Winnick: It is not difficult to imagine the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) making a similar speech during the passage of the Rent Act 1957. He would have used the same words about confidence in people and having fewer regulations.
The Minister's remarks tonight have been interesting. He told us that no major legislation is intended in this Parliament. I am not sure what he means by "major", but we shall pursue the point on other occasions to see what is intended for the rented sector. If deregulation comes about in this Parliament or in the next, it may be limited to some types of rented accommodation, but that would be only a first step towards further action to free the rented sector from regulations, which the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Suffolk, Central would wish to see.
Last week's issue of The Economist referred to the escalation of deregulation and made the point that in time almost everything in the privately rented sector would be decontrolled. I am sure that that is the position. It is also interesting to note that the Minister spoke about the possibility of new tenancies being subject to such decontrol. That was part of the Rent Act 1957 and the reason why unscrupulous people, whose names are well known to us, did everything that they could through harassment and worse to get rid of existing tenants. Once the controlled tenant was out, the place could be sold or let on a decontrolled basis. It is hardly likely that the statement that only new tenancies will be subject to control will possibly satisfy us.
It is a fallacy that rent control and security of tenure have been main factors in the decline of rented accomodation. I have never denied that they were factors, but they are not the most important. Slum clearance, arising not directly from the Rent Act 1957 but over a long period, has been an important factor. Other factors have been the public sector replacement of slums and the very large increase in owner-occupation with tax relief on mortgage interest. Those are the historical reasons for the sharp decline of the privately rented sector.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) mentioned the evidence given in 1981–82 to the Environment Select Committee. The British Property Federation and other witnesses made it clear to the Committee that landlords would require a proper return on such rented accommodation if the dwellings were to be

provided. I would urge hon. Members to read the report and the detailed oral and written evidence given to the Select Committee. It showed clearly that the return expected by property companies and landlords would make it almost impossible for many people to afford accommodation in the rented sector.
Paragraph 55 of the report mentions a 9 per cent. return on such dwellings, which was the figure given to us by the British Property Federation, and states:
On this basis, even if the proportion that tenants were expected to pay was increased considerably, rents giving a 9 per cent. rate of return would require a very large increase in public expenditure on rent allowances and supplementary benefit.
It would indeed need an extremely large amount of public expenditure. It is interesting to note that Conservative Members, who usually criticise such spending, believe it right and proper to spend public money on subsidising property companies in that way.
What worries many of us is the way in which private tenants continue to suffer harassment. In London and other large cities, companies and landlords try constantly to evade the Rent Act regulations.
I wish to draw attention to the scandalous way in which the Berger property empire continues to operate. It is estimated that it has about 100,000 flats and houses in the United Kingdom, and the empire consists of a tangled web of almost 300 companies. I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), following some exchanges at Question Time. I supplied him with plenty of documentary evidence about the Berger property empire, and his reply was along predictable lines: that no ministerial action could be taken. The tenants of that company have long complained of the serious neglect of their properties. Maximum profits are being made by the Berger group while the minimum is spent on repairs, renovation and services. The company uses many methods to pressurise tenants into leaving through neglect of the property.
It is disgraceful that the Berger property company should be allowed to operate in that way without action being taken by the Government. I am pleased that the tenants have formed an organisation to try to force the company to make repairs. I hope—I am not optimistic —that the Government will assist those tenants.
The majority of people will undoubtedly resolve their housing problems through owner-occupation. The Labour party's position on that has been made clear repeatedly. From what some Conservative Members say, one would imagine that the Labour party was against owner-occupation. Far from it. I have illustrated in previous speeches the actions taken by Labour Governments to encourage people to become owner-occupiers and the assistance that has been given to many people who would otherwise be unable to own their homes.
However, it is important to remember that a substantial minority of people—I believe that there will always be such a substantial minority—are not in a position to buy. In the greater London area, many people—even those earning average incomes — have no chance of starting on the ladder of owner-occupation. That is why we must have a rented sector. The private rented sector cannot supply the accommodation that is needed. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that people should not profit from other people's housing needs. That is an important Socialist concept, for which there is no reason to apologise.


Therefore, for those who cannot become owner-occupiers, rented accommodation should be supplied through the public sector, genuine housing associations and housing co-operatives. That is the way in which adequate accommodation could be provided. The opposite is now the case because only a small number of council dwellings are being built, and authorities like mine have not been able to start any house building since 1979. It is wrong that so many people should be denied decent accommodation simply because Government dogma is curtailing building in the public sector.
The Government's housing policy has caused much misery and hardship. As we have seen tonight, they are being subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure to deregulate privately rented housing and the Opposition have a duty to warn the electorate that, in the unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next election, the type of operation carried out under the Rent Act 1957 will be repeated. A Tory victory at the next election could well mean that a large number of private tenants who at present enjoy security of tenure will have that protection taken away. That is a warning for the electorate of what will happen if the Tories win the next election.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is clear in his warning to the public, but this House has another duty and it is to tell the truth about the policies and issues that concern the electorate. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there will be wholesale decontrol of privately rented houses. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, made it clear that he does not have that in mind, nor is it in the mind of any other member of the Government. It is certainly not what Members on the Government Benches would be prepared to support.
Many of us have constituents who reside in the declining privately rented sector, and we know that those constituents, especially the elderly, must enjoy the full protection of the law. In many respects we want to see that law strengthened. This debate is not about taking away rights that tenants presently enjoy; it is about how vast numbers of empty houses in the inner cities might be brought into use.
The debate began with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) trailing, as it were, the coming by-election in Fulham and he appeared to concentrate on that. But at least there was some consensus in his speech and I welcome that. His commitment to shared tenancy schemes, of which there are 163 in operation, was welcome. That is one way forward. I believe I understood him to support the concept of shorthold, and that too is welcome.

Mr. Rooker: I never mentioned shorthold. I have a firm commitment to homes for the future. We are not in favour of shorthold and would abolish it. I do not want the hon. Member to be under any misunderstanding. I spoke about shared ownership and assured tenancies.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I misunderstood him because I thought he said shorthold.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to shared ownership, because that is certainly one of the most

important ways of helping young married couples and others with home ownership. It is popular in my constituency and I am glad that there is common ground on this issue. It is an important area of common ground that I am sure we would wish to strengthen and encourage.
Shorthold creates a problem. Many of my elderly constituents live in large flats which they can ill afford to maintain. Sometimes those tenants are widowed and are trying to pay rent and all the other rates and service charges that arise these days. Such constituents would welcome the opportunity to share their homes, perhaps with young mobile workers who want to come into central London, but they dare not open the door to such people. I shared the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) when he referred to that problem. Surely, in the interests of common sense, this House should discover the acceptable boundaries whereby people may rent part of their homes or the properties in which they live.
The Nugee committee produced an important report. It sat for many months and considered the complicated problems affecting the occupants, leaseholders or renting tenants in blocks of flats. It is true that the hundreds of thousands of people who still live in such blocks reside mainly in London, the south-east and the inner cities. They are often elderly and unable to change to home ownership or to find accommodation elsewhere. They are captives of the system. This House has a duty to protect them and to improve the quality of their lives.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the Berger empire. It is indeed a bad property-owning company, with a total disinterest in the management of its properties and the quality of life of their unfortunate occupants.
One recommendation of the Nugee report dealt with that point. It suggested that, in appropriate circumstances, there should be an interim procedure whereby the aggrieved could require the landlord to remedy any defect or any breaches in convenants; should this fail, the tenants would be able to apply to the courts. Indeed, the report recommended that this provision should be widened to include the county courts for the appointment of a receiver-manager.
There are suggested remedies in the report to deal with some of those very real ills, which must be dealt with. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give some commitment on when we will implement them. I know that it is a complicated area, but we must have legislation to deal with such dreadful circumstances that inflict such misery on so many people.
The report was concerned with the management of blocks of flats; it did not look beyond that. We have heard tonight about the right to buy. The Committee went so far as to say that, if a property company proposed to dispose of its assets, the existing occupants should have the first right of refusal under a fair purchase arrangement. I very much welcomed my hon. Friend's statement that he would consider going further than that. I hope that he does—

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that I was not in any sense criticising the committee or its distinguished chairman? They strove always to stay within the terms of reference.

Mr. Wheeler: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The committee was made up of persons


with a variety of backgrounds, both professional and political. Indeed, it included a distinguished Labour councillor from Camden. All of its 53 recommendations were approved by all its members, so there was wide consensus.
The committee was concerned only with management issues and did not consider the wider political aspects. I would welcome a collective right to buy for the majority of tenants or leaseholders in a block of flats. That would make a great deal of sense. However, it would not solve the complicated human relationship problems of management. There is immense concern in London about foreign ownership of residential tenanted property. That issue should be examined. The Government should also consider urgently what should be done about the enforcement of the existing law by environmental health officers in local authorities. In the city of Westminster a unit has been set up to provide advice to the private rented sector. It is working extremely well, but in many authorities that has not been done, with the consequence that people who require professional help and guidance to deal with bad landlord or management problems find that it is lacking.
I welcome the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State I urge upon him early acceptance of the Nugee committee recommendations. Once enacted, they will go a long way to resolving some of the problems. I welcome, too, the prospect of extending the principle to the collective right to buy in the private sector.

Mr. Harry Cohen: There is a scene in the excellent film "My Beautiful Laundrette" where a tenant is summarily thrown out on the street. When asked about it, the Pakistani landlord says that he is not a professional Pakistani but a professional business man. Later in the film, he and his colleagues drink to the Prime Minister for making it all possible. Evictions are not about race, but about bad landlords of all races. Many landlords are highly impersonal private companies. They are not professional or even amateur home suppliers, but professional business men who want as large a profit as they can get. Her Majesty's Government have facilitated them. In the process, the rights of private tenants, which were inadequate in the first place, have been whittled down still further.
Private tenants are a deprived social group. They lack security. Many have to pay exorbitant rents. They face harassment and illegal eviction. They live in substandard accommodation. About 42 per cent. of private rented dwellings are in substantial disrepair. Private tenants are four times more likely than other households to live in accommodation that is unfit for human habitation. One in four private tenants do not have exclusive use of a bath or toilet. How many Conservative Members would like to queue up for the use of a bath or toilet?
Private tenants are also potential victims of speculators who make huge profits by buying tenanted property, removing the tenant by any means and selling with vacant possession. Private tenants do not get their fair share of public subsidy. In 1983–84, owner-occupiers received £7 billion. There was no such subsidy to private tenants, despite the fact that 70 per cent. of them had below-average earnings. Homelessness has worsened under the Tory Government. As I mentioned in a speech just before

Christmas, in my borough 150 people are homeless. That puts an immense burden on the local authority and affects the other people on the council's waiting list.
The answer was set out as a charter of rights for private tenants drawn up by various organisations, including the Law Centres Federation, the Organisation of Private Tenants, the Campaign for Single Homeless People, Shelter—the National Campaign for the Homeless—and SHAC, the London Housing Aid Centre, which has as its chairman Nick Raynsford, the excellent candidate for Labour in the Fulham by-election. I shall be one of the first to welcome him to the House after that by-election. Those organisations have drawn up an excellent charter for private tenants which the Government should implement. Its emphasis is on local authorities helping private tenants. I shall refer to some of its principles.
Councils should provide new services and change existing ones to promote the interests of private tenants. Tenants should be able to force local authorities to use their powers. Councils should consult private tenants individually and on overall policy. Different council departments should work together in the interests of tenants. Councils must seek out the worst private rented property and deal with it systematically.
In addition to those general principles, the charter goes into detail about houses in multiple occupation, the council's role in regular consultation with tenants, tackling unfit premises on a worst first basis, and identifying landlords who consistently evade the Rent Acts. Exorbitant rents should be referred to the rent officer so that he can set fair rents. Local authorities should also provide a comprehensive housing aid service, including investigators where there is harassment, and provide legal support for tenants. The rights of private tenants should be publicised, including housing benefit rights, in a number of languages so as to reach the many ethnic minority tenants.
The charter also deals with rents and subsidies, security, the need to strengthen the laws against harassment and illegal eviction and the need for a proper right to repairs to a minimum standard. It is an excellent charter, but there is also a role for central Government. The Government should be working in partnership with the local authorities and making available the means for local authorities to implement the charter, rather than rate capping them and cutting their housing investment programme. All this needs a far more sympathetic Government policy, but the Government are not sympathetic to private tenants because there is no profit in it.

Mr. John Butterfill: I have been rather depressed by what I have heard today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] It shows that the Opposition have not learnt what is the key to the provision of private sector housing. In other countries thriving private sectors fulfil the need. I accept what has been said about the evils of wicked landlords and Rachmanism in this country, but it is all due to one thing—the stupid controls which have created artificial markets, without which Rachmanism could never have existed in the first place.
I am a partner in a firm of chartered surveyors which has managed private rented property for nearly 50 years. By and large, private landlords are not the greedy people that the Opposition describe. Most of those for whom my


firm manages property are elderly. Most have only one property, some have two. The best landlords for whom we act are family trusts, which have more properties. The family trusts do not sell off their properties. They re-let them. Family trusts are still good private landlords.
The problem is that no one is encouraged to reinvest while the present system of control remains. We could overcome that problem if we had the political will to get rid of rent control. I accept that that would mean much greater subsidies from the Treasury. That political constraint has held all parties back, but it cannot be moral to expect private landlords to subsidise occupation which should be subsidised either by local authorities or by the state. If people cannot afford to pay the market rent, we should not expect private people to subsidise them.
I cannot see why private landlords should be described as evil people. It is said that they make profits from other people's housing needs. I would sooner say that they invest to help others gain housing. There are many other forms of investment. Many landlords for which my firm acts could easily have sold their property and invested the money in building societies and got better returns. They have chosen not to do that, for purely philanthropic motives. Such people still exist.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about repairs and said that tenants should have the opportunity to be rehoused if repairs were being carried out. Where does the money for that come from when a landlord does not get sufficient rent even to repair the property? Who will subsidise that activity?

Mr. Rooker: The local authority.

Mr. Butterfill: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that.

Mr. Rooker: The local authority should be given a grant.

Mr. Butterfill: It is a problem. Who should be subsidised? In deference to my hon. Friend the Minister, I shall sit down. I have said only part of what I had hoped to say. I hope that the Government will reconsider the circumstances of private landlords.

Mr. John Fraser: A theme of the debate has been the status of leaseholders of residential flats. Let me make it absolutely clear, as I think that I have done on almost every piece of housing legislation and in every debate that I have been afforded the opportunity to do so, the time is grossly overdue when we should legislate for leaseholders of residential accommodation along the lines of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 — which the Government of the day described as Rachmanism in reverse —to give leaseholders the right collectively to buy their freeholds and collectively to manage their property, and to introduce the other recommendations of the Nugee committee report. I shall say no more about that except to underline again our overwhelming support for such a measure.
Today's debate has been about the least supported and most neglected families and householders in the country —the tenants in privately rented accommodation. One in six privately rented homes is unfit for human habitation and half are in a substantial state of disrepair. At the worst,

private tenants are subject to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and other Front Bench colleagues saw only this Monday in Fulham.
The treatment can be degrading, but it is at its worst in bed and breakfast accommodation. Being an occupant of such property means disease, malnutrition and sometimes even death because of the dangerous conditions that people are expected to endure.
Tory party policy to the rented sector has several trends, which have been seen recently. One is not to increase but to reduce income support for people with no access to owner-occupation. That is demonstrated by cuts in the board and lodging allowance, which caused so much concern among politicians and in the courts. It is also demonstrated by the prospective cuts in housing benefit, which have been forced on the DHSS by the Treasury.
Another trend is a reduction in capital expenditure on repair and improvement grants for the private sector. Local authorities, especially those in the most depressed areas with the greatest amount of privately rented accommodation, now have so little housing investment programme allocation that they are barely able to keep up with their contractual commitments, so the money that is essential to improve and repair privately rented accommodation is no longer available.
The cuts in capital expenditure have a second effect. They deny private tenants that which they would regard as paradise — the opportunity to be transferred from privately rented accommodation to a secure, safe and well-heated home owned by the local authority or a housing association. That particularly applies to the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable—of whom a large number are occupants of privately rented accommodation.
The situation is so bad in London, Manchester and some other places that the only route from privately rented accommodation into public accommodation is that of homelessness. This debate has been far too polite. We should remind ourselves that last year, 100,000 families were accepted — many more applied — as being homeless. That is the equivalent of every family in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham having their roof taken away and being evicted. That is the scale of homelessness in the United Kingdom today.
The fourth theme that the Tories adopt towards privately rented accommodation is that if a choice has to be made—and it is electorally safe—between landlord and tenant, property and people or community and corporation, they would choose the corporation, the property and the landlord. That is seen in the speech made by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction to the Young Conservatives conference.
The last words of our motion underline the fact that in the next Parliament the Government are contemplating an end to what the Minister calls Socialist rent control, with rents being artificially low. Many private tenants in my constituency do not regard their controlled rents as being artificially low.
Certain consequences will flow from decontrol and any repeal of the Rent Act 1977. The first will be that rents will rocket. Apart from the evidence of one's own experience, one need only look at the report of the Select Committee on the Environment in 1981, which talked of the very high rents faced by households that were trying to gain access to the private rented sector in areas of considerable housing stress. It stated:


Rents quoted for lettings outside the Rent Act ranged from two to four times the registered rent.
It also gave an example of the sort of accommodation that might be occupied by the single person to whom the Minister referred. We all know that a studio flat is practically a cubbyhole. For such a flat in Paddington, the registered rent was £30 a week, whereas the rent on the open market would have been about £90 a week. If translated to 1985–86 prices, such a rent would rise to between £100 and £120 a week.
If the Minister thinks that decontrol will help the homeless, I cite the example of Mrs. Ashby of Fulham, who is temporarily occupying a flat that will go on to the market for about £55,000. A9 per cent. return on £55,000 is £4,950 a year—almost £100 a week. That is the kind of accommodation that the Minister says will become available to the homeless if there is decontrol in the next parliamentary term. It is absolute rubbish to think that decontrol will solve the problem of homelessness and housing shortage in London and other areas.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I am very short of time and cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, the Minister also talked of landlords and tenants agreeing rents freely, as if there would be some kind of freedom to negotiate if there were decontrol. The only freedom that decontrol will create will be the freedom to exploit—the kind of freedom that exists between a warder and his prisoner, and the freedom of the oxen to wear a yoke.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Fraser: Thirdly, the Minister says that more accommodation will become available. That is absolute rubbish, as is shown by the experience following the Rent Act 1957. I took the trouble to read through the Milner Holland report to find out how much of the extra accommodation that was forecast by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) would be available. The report examined a period of 40 months from 1960–63 — a period of decontrol and absence of security of tenure. In that time, it was estimated that the loss of lettings was 14 per cent. in London. There is no evidence that decontrol brings properties on the market to rent—quite the reverse, it makes them available only for sale.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry. but I have only a short time.
The fourth proposition is that even if property becomes available for letting as a result of decontrol, one simple thing happens — as prices go up, the amount of accommodation available for a person to occupy goes down. The price rises and the square footage decreases. It leads to what it led to between 1957–64—to grossly overcrowded as well as overpriced accommodation, multiple occupation, insecurity and difficulty.
When I gave evidence to Lord Scarman's inquiry, I wondered why some of my constituents behave in their 20s as they do, and I am sure that one of the reasons was the rotten, overcrowded nomadic existence through which they had to go during decontrol, particularly if they were using unfurnished tenancies. At the end of the day, the local authority has to pick up the tab for such behaviour.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Fraser: This is a short debate.
I shall end my speech with three pictures of the housing situation today and of what the Prime Minister cares to call "popular capitalism". The first is a retrospective picture from the Milner Holland report, written after seven years of decontrol. It says:
the prime cause of most of the hardship, misery and anxiety which we have described is the absence of any adequate security of tenure in the situation which prevails in London of a grave shortage of accommodation for rent at the lower end of the rental scale.
Exactly the same thing will happen as a result of the decontrol provisions that are to be put forward for the next session. What was true in the Rachman years is as true today.
The second picture of housing under popular capitalism is the picture of Mrs. Ellen Griffin, a private tenant whom I saw in Fulham on Monday. I do not think this is funny, although I see the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Marlow) laughing. Mrs. Griffin is 80 and frail and cannot even climb up to the gas meter to put in her money. For half a century, she has lived in conditions that we would all regard as intolerable. Her home is decaying around her. She has not enjoyed hot water for decades and her shared home is hopelessly outdated. She is in a top floor flat without light in the corridor. The roof leaks and in this weather her home is like a Siberian prison. I know from my colleagues that there are thousands of Ellen Griffins in Britain, who look for sheltered, warm and secure housing, which only the community or the state can provide, and which is denied to them because of the savage cuts in public housing investment which, for all the rhetoric that we have heard from Conservative Members, will take place again next year.
My third picture of Tory values is one that I saw last night as I drove back from a meeting in Finchley. Outside Holborn underground station, two people lay on the pavement, one in a blanket, the other in a cardboard box. They were trying to benefit from some of the warm air coming through the grills from the underground station after it had been closed. They represented the ultimate state of caring Conservatism and popular capitalism. Under such a regime we are reduced to housing meaning a box in a blizzard on a pavement.
I did not ask those two people last night whether they thought that decontrol of privately rented accommodation would help them. I did not ask. Mrs. Griffin if it would help her. I did not need to, because I knew the answer already. What we ask for tonight is the support of all parties in the House for the motion when the House divides in opposition to a housing policy which already divides the nation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): This has been a relatively short debate, but with one or two exceptions it has been a fairly reflective debate, with, on occasions, some glimpses of neutral territory or common ground appearing between the two sides. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) criticised the debate for being too polite. That must have been a criticism of his hon. Friends rather than of mine, because my hon. Friends are always polite.
Let me deal with an implication in the hon. Gentleman's speech that there has been a cut in improvement grants to landlords. I listened to what he said


about Mrs. Ashby and Mrs. Griffin. There was an implication that councils were giving less help to private landlords and tenants, but I must give him the figures. In 1979, 10,000 grants were given by local authorities to private landlords. In 1984, the latest year for which we have figures, there were 33,000 grants. The number of grants paid to private tenants has also trebled. Since 1981 local authorities have paid over 100,000 home improvement grants to landlords. Almost half of those were for conversion and improvement, and a quarter for essential repairs. Whichever way one looks at it, that is a sizeable commitment of public expenditure and it is a substantial increase over what was paid by the previous Labour Government. We intend to maintain that commitment and ensure that help is available to those who need it.
If I do not have time to deal with all the points that have been made it is because the time available is inevitably restricted.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made a balanced speech and rejected the municipal solution. I think that he rejected the logical conclusion that comes from his premise, that there would have to be some movements in rents if one removes some of the controls, but I noted and welcomed what he said about the assured tenancy scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) spoke about the Nugee report, and I pay tribute to the work that he did in the Department to improve the rights to leaseholders. He raised the intriguing point that the election expenses for the Labour candidate in Fulham may well have been started. I noticed that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to him not as the prospective parliamentary candidate, but as the parliamentary candidate. I wonder whether the costs of the debate, including the modest salaries paid to myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction should be debited—

Mr. Cohen: It was a slip of the tongue.

Sir George Young: It may have been an expensive slip of the tongue.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) spoke about extending the right of first refusal to long leaseholders, a point which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). The Nugee committee recommended that where a landlord wished to dispose of his interest, the residents should have a right of first refusal to enable them to buy the block if they so wished. We are considering that proposal. We are also considering the wider question which my hon. Friend raised of whether residents should have a collective right to purchase in other circumstances. We are doing this as part of our reflection on the Nugee committee's findings. We are well aware of the urgent need to make progress. Large numbers of leaseholders are waiting for the Government to come to some conclusion, and we shall do so as soon as we can.
I also welcome what the right hon. Member for Brent, East said about the assured tenancy scheme and the notion of extending more rights to tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) raised the vital question of the homeless. That factor

was left out of many contributions. He put the housing debate in a slightly broader context and reminded us of the needs of those on waiting lists and others.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made a somewhat doctrinaire speech. It was clear to him that the private sector had no role to play in solving housing problems.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) implied that all Conservative Members favour doing away with rent control altogether. I think that the vast majority of Conservative Members believe that people in regulated tenancies have security of tenure and regulated rents, and that it would be totally improper to interfere with that system in any way. Will my hon. Friend point out to Labour Members that, on the continent, people are building accommodation for private rent? On the continent, people take that accommodation. They can afford it and it works. Why the blazes can it not work here?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let me make it clear that we have no intention of removing the protection enjoyed by existing tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) gave us the benefit of his experience in dealing with property. He deplored the continuing restrictions on investment.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that being a private landlord was an unacceptable way of living.

Mr. Rooker: I did not say that.

Sir George Young: I wrote the words down the moment the hon. Gentleman said them.

Mr. Rooker: I was reading from my notes. I did not say that. I said that being another person's landlord for a crude commercial profit was an unacceptable way of earning a living. That is what I said. It is not what the Under-Secretary of State said.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman's comments will cause great offence to many landlords and landladies and to their tenants, who have a perfectly respectable and acceptable relationship with them. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that that was an unacceptable way of living. That is one of the less thoughtful remarks that we have heard from him.
Not so long ago, any debate on this subject would have led to a call from the Opposition to municipalise private landlords. I am not sure whether any of them still maintain that that is the right solution. If they did take that action, it would cost about £10 billion.
The solutions put forward this evening by the Opposition will not work either. Some of my colleagues explained why the present regime is not working. In case their arguments fell on deaf ears, I shall quote three passages from last year's inquiry into British housing, chaired by Prince Philip, which had representatives from all political parties on it. The inquiry stated:
At present there is an almost total dependency on public funding for rented housing. This is restrictive and inevitably vulnerable to changes in housing policy".
On rates of return, the inquiry stated:
These fair rent rates of return are inadequate to keep existing landlords in the market if they have the option of a sale with vacant possession for owner-occupation. Nor are these returns necessarily sufficient to provide an incentive to improvement or repair, and they certainly are insufficient to encourage new investment in property to rent".


On the Rent Acts, the inquiry said:
Looked at objectively, the protective legislation of the Rent Acts is either responsible all too often for diminution of supply, or is irrelevant as landlords exploit the various loopholes open to them. In either case, it is hard to see that current legislation is effective in protecting anyone's interests.
The Tory party did not say that. The inquiry set up by the National Federation of Housing Associations, which included many housing experts, unanimously came to that conclusion.
The first report of the Select Committee on the Environment stated:
The Committee concludes that a healthy private rented sector would require that commercial landlords were able to obtain a return on investment commensurate to that available on similar risk investments elsewhere and that tenants were able without hardship to pay rents on suitable secure accommodation The present system appears to meet neither of these requirements.
That is the system which many Labour Members sought to defend. Why are they so wedded to a system which freezes out respectable institutional funding, which could help us tackle bad housing conditions? Many Labour councils are now collaborating with the private sector to turn around difficult estates. There can be no problem, therefore, about harnessing the resources of the private sector to meet housing needs.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 258.

Division No. 80]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M.


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clarke, Thomas
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Robert
Flannery, Martin


Clelland, David Gordon
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Forrester, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Foster, Derek


Cohen, Harry
Foulkes, George


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Garrett, W. E.


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
George, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John





Godman, Dr Norman
O'Brien, William


Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Lambie, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Loyden, Edward
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McTaggart, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mallon, Seamus
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Torney, Tom


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael
Wareing, Robert


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Michael


Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Michie, William
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian
Woodall, Alec


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Nellist, David
Mr. Allen McKay.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon





NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Benyon, William
Bulmer, Esmond


Best, Keith
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, John (Luton N)






Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Cockeram, Eric
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Corrie, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Robert
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Farr, Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Anthony
Lester, Jim


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fletcher, Alexander
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Marcus
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Neil


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David John


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Galley, Roy
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Antony


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Merchant, Piers


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Mudd, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Henderson, Barry
Norris, Steven


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Speller, Tony


Pollock, Alexander
Spence, John


Porter, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Portillo, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Powley, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raffan, Keith
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Renton, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitfield, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Woodcock, Michael


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 150.

Division No. 81]
[10.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Corrie, John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Crouch, David


Benyon, William
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Best, Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Robert


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fletcher, Alexander


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Forth, Eric


Bruinvels, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Franks, Cecil


Bulmer, Esmond
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Fry, Peter


Butterfill, John
Galley, Roy






Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mellor, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Norris, Steven


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayward, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pollock, Alexander


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Portillo, Michael


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Powley, John


Howard, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raffan, Keith


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Irving, Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lamont, Norman
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thurnham, Peter


Lester, Jim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lightbown, David
Trippier, David


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Viggers, Peter


Lord, Michael
Waddington, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McCrindle, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wall, Sir Patrick


Macfarlane, Neil
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David John
Whitfield, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wiggin, Jerry


Major, John
Wood, Timothy


Malone, Gerald
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maples, John



Marland, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marlow, Antony
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Mates, Michael
Mr. Peter Lloyd.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bagier, Gordon A. T.





Beith, A. J.
Janner, Hon Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lambie, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Edward


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Thomas
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clelland, David Gordon
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Mallon, Seamus


Coleman, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Conlan, Bernard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Michie, William


Crowther, Stan
Mikardo, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, David


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Brien, William


Dalyell, Tam
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fatchett, Derek
Robertson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Rooker, J. W.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Stott, Roger


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Straw, Jack


Gourlay, Harry
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hancock, Michael
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Wallace, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. David Alton and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. John Cartwright.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,


That this House asserts the need for a healthy and reviving private rented sector with an adequate supply of sound homes to rent as being in the best interests of tenants and landlords and those looking for accommodation; further asserts the need for

improved statutory safeguards to ensure proper management of privately owned blocks of flats; and notes that provision for capital expenditure on housing was increased in the Public Expenditure White Paper.

Prevention of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
We are debating tonight how a democratic society can legitimately respond to the use of indiscriminate and brutal violence for political ends. Terrorism is a fearful phenomenon of our age, because it seeks to turn one of democracy's greatest strengths, the openness of our society, inward against us. In replying to the threat of terrorism, we must jealously protect our traditional liberties, but we must be realistic about the threat that is posed to our free society by terrorism. Society has a right to defend itself, to protect innocent citizens and to give to the police and the Executive carefully defined exceptional powers, subject to the regular approval of Parliament.
The purpose of the order is to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22 March. It is the best weapon that we have against the continuing menace of terrorism. I regard its renewal as a sad but necessary step. During the past year, the police have had notable successes in countering and preventing terrorism. Those have demonstrated both the continuing nature of the threat that we are facing and the effective use that can be made of the special powers that the Act provides. When I became Home Secretary I studied these matters carefully, and reached the conclusion that the only responsible policy in present circumstances was to continue the Act in force.
Briefly, in relation to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, the Act provides powers to proscribe terrorist organisations; to exclude terrorists from a part, or the whole, of the United Kingdom; and to detain for questioning persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. The latter power is also available in relation to international terrorism. The Act also establishes offences of supporting proscribed organisations, breaching or helping to breach exclusion orders, contributing to acts of terrorism and withholding information about terrorism.
I think that the House would agree that the Act makes substantial inroads on ordinary civil liberties. The Government accept that it should not be kept in force longer than is necessary. Each year Parliament reconsiders the need for its renewal, and an essential part of the argument must be the level of recent terrorist activity.
The 1974 Act followed closely upon the Birmingham bombings, which killed 21 innocent people. The introduction of the 1984 Act came shortly after the Harrods bomb and was followed a few months later by the attack on the Conservative party conference in Brighton. Fortunately, there have been no similar terrorist outrages in Great Britain in 1985. The core of our argument, however, is that without the vigilance of the police, using the powers that this Act confers, the story might have been very different.
In June the police made a number of arrests under the Act in Glasgow and elsewhere. As a result, eight people were charged with conspiracy to cause explosions, one of whom has also been charged in connection with the Brighton bombing. Following the arrests, the police found and disarmed a bomb planted by the IRA in the Rubens

hotel in London. The House will remember my predecessor's statement, which gave details of a conspiracy to plant bombs in a number of seaside towns, timed to explode at the height of the holiday season. We owe it to the perseverence and professionalism of the police that that plan of violence did not succeed. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion.
On 11 November, two large bombs that had been placed outside Chelsea barracks were fortunately discovered and made safe before they could explode. A number of arrests followed and two men have been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion.
Two weeks ago in Manchester, two men who pleaded guilty to planning a bomb attack on a retired army officer were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A third was convicted of an offence of withholding information under section 11 of the Act. I know that the police, because of their power under section 12 of the Act, were able to arrest those concerned earlier than would otherwise have been possible. All those incidents, of which none fortunately produced a fatal result, took place in Great Britain. However, I do not need to remind the House of the continued scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Because part of the Act now covers international terrorism, I should warn the House of a new anxiety concerning terrorist activity here connected with the affairs of India. Since November last year several prominent members of the Sikh community have been attacked, apparently by other Sikhs of extreme views. The most recent attack resulted in the death of the victim, Mr. Tarsem Singh Toor, who was well known as a moderate. One person who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been charged with conspiracy to murder Mr. Toor and two other people. So the Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion. Last October four Sikhs arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Leicester were charged with conspiracy to murder the Indian Prime Minister during his visit here. We intend to be vigilant in dealing with This danger and vigorous in pursuing those who resort to violence in order to further a political argument about the future of Punjab.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As vice-chairman of the Indo-British Association may I say to my right hon. Friend how much it is appreciated by the Indian community, not only here but in the Punjab, that he should have stated his position on the matter so well at the annual dinner the other night and how encouraging it is tonight to hear him carry the matter forward under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, we have to spend a good deal of time on the matter. My purpose in bringing it in tonight was to illustrate how wise the House was to agree to Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that the Act should in that respect be extended to cover terrorism other than in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the number of Sikhs who have been detained and subsequently charged. Can he say something about the number of Kashmiris who have been detained? He knows of a case with which I have been concerned involving Mr. Chaudry Siddique. Kashmiris have been detained, in some cases on two occasions, on


what they believed to be fishing expeditions by the police, and have not been charged. Will he make observations on the fact that that has led to very deep concern in the Kashmiri community as a whole about the activities of the police?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to draw my attention to his worries. There is no question of fishing expeditions in the use of the Act. In the cases he mentioned the police were acting on specific information. Having looked into them as a result of his representations I believe that the police acted correctly within the letter of the Act. I am glad to have the opportunity to make that point clear.
The case for retaining the powers of the Act rests on the judgment that it helps to limit terrorism. We accept the view of Lord Jellicoe who recommended:
if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism…it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains".
I do not see much likelihood of the Act becoming unnecessary in the near future, because of the kind of incidents I have just enumerated. The annual renewal procedure helps to remind us that the powers are exceptional and helps to prevent them from becoming an accepted feature of our criminal law. Our consideration of the case is materially helped by the report of Sir Cyril Philips on the operation of the Act in 1985. He carries out admirably his role of providing the House with a snapshot picture of the way that the Act works in practice, with particular emphasis on any indications that the powers are being abused. He submits himself to an exhausting programme of visits and discussions and is given wide access to Home Office papers on particular cases, including any where a complaint has been made about the way in which the Act operated. I am deeply grateful to him, as I am sure all hon. Members are.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his colleagues criticised me courteously in correspondence for, in their belief, failing to publicise the fact that Sir Cyril's review was in progress or announcing its publication. I think that they are a little unfair and I have replied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in some detail. Since last year's renewal, it had been public knowledge that Sir Cyril would again carry out a review this year. I announced this in answer to a question on 14 January, but I accept that it would have been sensible to make the announcement a little earlier. Nevertheless, it allowed time for hon. Members to make representations to Sir Cyril if they wished. I received Sir Cyril's report on 27 January and on 30 January I announced that I had placed copies of it and of my reply in the Library and the Vote Office, so this year—as opposed to last year—there was ample time between the tabling of Sir Cyril's report and this debate.
Sir Cyril suggested that Parliament should pay special attention to the exclusion powers under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Those sections provide power to exclude British citizens from either Great Britain or Northern Ireland if the responsible Secretary of State is satisfied that they are concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It has sometimes been described as a power of internal exile, but that is misleading because exiles are forced to leave their homes, whereas sections 4

and 5 cannot be used to exclude a British citizen from a part of the United Kingdom in which he or she has been ordinarily resident for the last three years.
I know that the police in Great Britain and Northern Ireland continue to find that exclusion is valuable in the containment and prevention of terrorism. Terrorism thrives on movement. The mobility of the terrorist increases the circle of those who can be drawn into terrorist activity and it deepens public anxiety.
Sir Cyril Philips points out, accurately, that the exclusion power considerably infringes normal civil liberties. That is why Lord Jellicoe recommended that the possibility of abolishing this power should be kept under regular review and that it should be one of the first to be repealed. I accept that entirely, but our assessment of the security situation persuades us that it would not yet be safe to abandon this power. I will give the figures so that the House can judge for itself. At present, 240 exclusion orders are in force, most of them excluding people from Great Britain. A great many of those orders were made under the previous Acts and were therefore indefinite. In 1979, we began the practice of reviewing all exclusion orders of more than three years' standing.
Since the passage of the 1984 Act, which established a three-year time limit for new exclusion orders, the review of old orders has been accelerated, but in a significant number of cases exclusion has had to be maintained to protect the public. Last year, 58 orders were reviewed and exclusion was maintained in 25—just under half—of those cases. As we continue the review, it is probable that we shall identify a hard core of committed and active terrorists whom it would be dangerous to readmit to the territories from which they are excluded. I am therefore driven to think that the power of exclusion should be retained for the present. Sir Cyril suggests that the review process should continue and that the power to maintain the exclusion in some cases might be preserved. I think that that is right and I hope that the House will agree.
Sir Cyril makes another suggestion which I am not able at the moment to accept—that the Government should undertake not to make any new orders against persons who have not previously been excluded. He argues that the declining use of the exclusion power indicates that it is no longer necessary to make new orders. Having looked into the matter, I do not feel that that is yet the case. Last year, seven new exclusion orders were made, six of which are still in force, and that was four more than in the previous year. We are able to use the powers more sparingly than in the past, but I do not think that that undermines the justification for the few new orders that are now made. The power is reserved for the most serious cases and I am sure that the possibility of exclusion also has some deterrent effect which restricts the movement of a great many active terrorists. I think that Sir Cyril's proposal will be helpful if and when there are definite signs of a decline in the terrorist threat, but that moment is not yet with us.
I have no desire to heap powers on the police for the sake of doing so. The standing of the police in the community is so important that they should not have powers which they do not need and which only attract criticism to them. The protection of the public is the test, and in this case it is the protection of the public against terrorism. I hope that the House agrees that we have to be cautious about demolishing powers when the threat of terrorism is so active and, in some respects, increasing. It


would not be right to buy a nod of approval from the Opposition or a word of praise from The Guardian if the price is that terrorists can go about their work with a greater sense of ease and security.
It is essential that the Prevention of Terrorism Act be renewed again this year. This is familiar ground. It was first introduced by the Labour Administration in 1974. It is a weakness that our common approach to this problem has not been maintained. I believe that to argue that the legislation is no longer necessary is to ignore the plain facts, some of which I have set before the House.
Having some acquaintance with him, I think that, if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were in my position, he would need these powers and come to the House and ask for them. He would defy those pressures which oppose the powers, because he would then have a responsibility which forced him to seek them and very occasionally, and reluctantly, to use them. If that is so—I am sure in my own mind that it is—it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman could come to that point now as the spokesman of the main opposition party.
It is in that sentiment that I ask the House to support the renewal of the Act. I call on Opposition Members to think very carefully before they oppose the motion bearing in mind the terrorist threat that I have described. I hope that the House will act what I would regard as a responsible part when the House deals with this matter of vital national interest.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several minutes ago the House was subjected to an outbreak of the most appalling behaviour. The reason for that behaviour was to gain publicity. Is there any way in which the House can prevent the cause from being given publicity?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There is nothing that I can do about it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The whole House is united in its resolute and implacable hostility to terrorism. The question is not whether we should fight terrorism but how. What special powers, if any, are needed to fight terrorism? What civil liberties are we ready to sacrifice—what civil liberties is it right to sacrifice—to fight terrorism? The question is also whether substantial inroads into civil liberties caused by anti-terrorist legislation are themselves a victory for terrorism.
A prime aim of terrorist groups is to secure the contraction of civil liberties in the societies which they attack and to bring the authorities, especially the police and security forces, into conflict with the community. By doing so, terrorists hope to secure a larger number of passive sympathisers—more people to shelter them or to deny information to the police. They may even hope to recruit more active members. Above all, they hope to exploit a climate of abnormality and emergency in which to weaken general public confidence in the administration of the state.
When Parliament gives up part of our normal civil liberties, it risks giving terrorism a victory. From the day when the first version of this Act was introduced into Parliament, on behalf of the then Labour Government, by

the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), it has been acknowledged by successive Home Secretaries that the legislation erodes civil liberties.
Home Secretaries in this Government have acknowledged—and each of the phrases I now use is a quotation from statements by Conservative Home Secretaries since 1981—that the powers these Acts contain
infringe our shared concept of civil liberties … make a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud … make sad inroads into our cherished traditions of civil liberties … are intensely undesirable".
When the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) moved the Second Reading of the current Act, he said that its powers were
exceptional, not to be taken for granted, and to be exercised only with the greatest care and consideration".
He acknowledged that
In other circumstances"—
he—
would regard them as wholly unacceptable". —[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 52.]
Tonight the present Home Secretary agreed that this Act makes substantial inroads into ordinary civil liberties.
That is why this Act is limited to a five-year life and must be renewed annually. This is why each year it is not the Opposition who have to make the case for annulment but the Government who have to make a conclusive case for renewal. The Home Secretary failed to make that case tonight, and the facts that he failed to provide for the House demonstrate clearly why that case cannot properly be made.
In terms of preventing terrorism, this Act is a failure. Terrorism continues horrifically. The presence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book, most unhappily, prevented neither the atrocity at Harrods nor the abomination at Brighton. Indeed, the very statistics published by the Government themselves demonstrate how little effectiveness this legislation delivers in return for the inroads it undoubtedly makes into civil liberties.
The Government statistics published only last month demonstrate that starting from the introduction of the legislation in 1974 to the end of last year—less than six weeks ago—92 per cent. of those detained in Britain have not been subject to any charge. In other words, they are innocent in law. Moreover, only 3 per cent. have been charged with offences under the legislation, and one third of those have been charged only with failure to co-operate with examination at the port—a charge that could be made only because those subject to it were detained in the first place.
Of those charged with offences under these Acts, only 2 per cent. of those detained were found guilty of any offence whatsoever, and only a half of 1 per cent. were found guilty of offences meriting more than one year's imprisonment. Of those charged with criminal offences under other Acts, only 4 pet cent. of those detained were found guilty of such offences, and fewer than 2 per cent. received prison sentences of one year or more. All told, fewer than 2·5 per cent. of those detained were found to have committed offences of any substantial seriousness. Therefore, the Act, both as creator and apprehender of serious offences, is an almost complete failure.

Mr. Hurd: I gave the House particulars of various terrorist attempts in this country during 1985 that were frustrated, so that no one was killed, and I said that in each


of those cases the Act was used. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that amounts to a strong case for renewal?

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Act was used. He does not say whether those attempts would have been stopped had the Act never existed and had other powers, already available, been used instead. The Act has been used, and is being used. The question is whether it is needed to apprehend and deal with those who seek to commit terrorist acts.
Lacking information that the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have available to him, he has not presented a convincing case for anything except that an Act on the statute book has been used. I have demonstrated conclusively from his own figures that almost all the use of the Act for detection is detention of innocent persons who have not been charged with any offence.
The Act as an apprehender of perpetrators of offences that existed before the Act was passed is only a little more successful. It is impossible for the Government to demonstrate that the 71 people convicted of serious crimes after being detained under this Act since 1974–71 out of the more than 6,000 who have been detained—would not have been caught if the legislation had never been passed.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In the cases that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned of murderous acts having been frustrated by the use of the Act, what alternative powers would the right hon. Gentleman have used if he had been Home Secretary to frustrate such terrorist deeds in the absence of this Act?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall be coming to that point, and I request the hon. Gentleman to continue listening to what I have to say.
It is certain that 95 per cent. of those detained under this legislation have been completely innocent of anything, however trivial. That failure rate—or success rate, if one cares to put it that way—is scarcely a vindication of powers that Ministers in the present Government have described as "intensely undesirable" and "wholly unacceptable". Perhaps that is why, lacking any really convincing justification for the legislation, Ministers have been driven to make strange claims for retaining these powers.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks moved the Second Reading of the Act two years and four months ago, he called in aid, as an example of terrorism, the shooting of a former Israeli ambassador in London—an assassination attempt for which, he claimed, those responsible are now serving long sentences. However, those terrorists and would-be murderers were apprehended without any recourse to the powers under this Act, and were sentenced for offences not contained in them.
A year ago, when he moved the renewal of these powers, the Minister of state cited as an example of the necessity for continuing these powers the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. That was indeed a dreadful killing of a courageous young woman, and I have twice had the sad opportunity of meeting her bereaved parents and extending my sympathy to them. However, the legislation has done nothing to apprehend or to punish those who murdered

WPC Fletcher. Despite the continuing presence of the Act on the statute book, her killers went, and remain, free. Indeed, one Libyan present in the People's Bureau at the time of the murder is now living placidly in Wiltshire, courtesy of the Home Secretary.
Although terrorism unhappily continues, despite the continuance of this Act, the legislation is not only mostly activated in vain, but is too often activated in a highly questionable manner. In March of last year, 10 so-called hunt saboteurs were detained at Daventry police station and told that they were being held under the Act. That the Act was being used to hold them was confirmed to the National Council for Civil Liberties by the superintendent of the station. Three of those detained were charged with public order and theft offences, but those charges were subsequently dropped. Whatever were the police doing holding such people under the Act?
Five months ago, Mr Shapua Kaukungua, chief representative of SWAPO for the United Kingdom and western Europe, was held for examination at Heathrow airport under the Act. The Foreign Office has acknowledged SWAPO as an important and legitimate organisation yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) wrote to the Home Secretary drawing attention to the treatment of Mr. Kaukungua, the right hon. Gentleman replied on 30 January stating that this incident
does not in any way reflect on the Government's attitude towards the status of SWAPO",
and saying that what he called this "tiresome procedure" had to be suffered by hundreds of travellers each year.
But the Home Secretary's response was both inaccurate and disingenuous, because the Home Secretary's own statistics show that last year not hundreds of travellers but only 22 persons were examined for more than one hour under that part of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act relating to international terrorism. Mr. Kaukungua, the acknowledged representative of an acknowledged organisation in good standing with the Government, was one of those 22. The simple question that we have to ask is, why?
Last year, during the debate on the renewal of the Act the Minister of State, in a state of high indignation, declared:
It is quite outrageous to talk about random arrests.
under this Act. He insisted that
there is no question of random arrests.
Yet on 5 May last year councillor Sheena Clarke, the deputy chairman of Sheffield city council housing committee, returning after a housing conference in Belfast, was detained at Manchester airport under the Act, as the week before had another person from Sheffield who attended that conference. A spokesman for Greater Manchester police said later that the two detentions were routine,
like going through customs, a random one or two might be stopped.
That goes clear against the Minister's undertaking and is a deplorable misuse of an Act that the Minister himself last year in the same debate said represented
a very considerable infringement of the civil liberties normally enjoyed by individuals in this country."—[Official Report, 21 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1299–1304.]
How can the Home Secretary claim, as he did tonight, that there is no question of fishing expeditions under the Act when Greater Manchester police say that they stop people
like going through customs, a random one or two


under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
The fact is that in so far as the detention powers under the Act were ever needed, their continuation in England and Wales at any rate cannot be justified now even on the Government's own terms with the implementation of the powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under which those suspected of a serious criminal offence can be detained without charge for up to 96 hours.
If one takes the figures for Great Britain for last year, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would have allowed the detention for the full period during which they were held of all but 10 of the 193 people detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and not charged. To justify the seven-day power in any way, the Home Secretary should tell us how many of those detained for more than 96 hours were charged and how many were convicted on evidence obtained after 96 hours in detention. That information is simply not available, but it is very important.
Apart from the detention power, the most controversial power under the Act is the power of exclusion; and this year we have Sir Cyril Philips' report on the exclusion powers. Last February in the debate on the renewal of the Act the Minister of State was full of praise for Sir Cyril. In the 1985 debate he expressed gratitude to Sir Cyril and thanked him for producing an independent report which was, he said, "both clear and helpful". That, of course, was because 12 months ago Sir Cyril was, as the Minister put it,
broadly satisfied that the Act is being used properly".
This year the reaction to Sir Cyril's review has been rather different and it has to be said that that is because this year Sir Cyril clearly, from the Government's point of view, was not helpful. In his report he recalled that Lord Jellicoe in his review of 1983 stated:
the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … and the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.
He added:
it should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed".
The report by Sir Cyril Philips continued:
In the debates leading to the Act of 1984 Parliament accepted that the power to exclude was in many ways the most extreme of the powers in this Act, the most severe in its effect on civil liberties, the most divergent from the normal criminal process, and that it had aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who may well support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation.
There is no question that this power is objectionable in principle as being inconsistent with the right of the citizen to reside in and travel freely throughout the territory of the state of which he is a citizen and as operating to deprive a person of an important civil right without a judicial hearing.
Sir Cyril recommended:
For these reasons the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for sections 4 and 5. I understand the legal position to be that if these sections are not renewed, existing exclusion orders made under them will cease to have effect. A first prudent step might well take the form of an undertaking not to make any exclusion orders under sections 4 and 5 against persons who have not hitherto been subject to such an order".
The Home Secretary in his letter of reply to Sir Cyril admitted that exclusion orders
very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties",
but he curtly rejected Sir Cyril's recommendation, as he has done again tonight. But that recommendation was all the more powerful because it reminded the Home Secretary—something to which he has not referred—

that he now has powers to discontinue only part of this Act. Lord Elton, speaking for the Government in the other place when this legislation was being passed, promised that it was by no means a foregone conclusion that every section would be renewed.
The Home Secretary justified his decision by drawing attention to continuing terrorist activity. He has done that again tonight. But, on that basis, this legislation, passed in urgency to deal with a special situation and retained on the statute book with repugnance, will never be repealed, for it is hard to speculate when terrorism will be defeated. It is certain that terrorism continues despite the continuance of this legislation on the statute book. We are faced with the paradox that this Act's signal lack of success is cited as the reason why it should be continued.
Terrorism is a horror and a plague, and we should unite in using all legitimate weapons to combat and defeat it. The Opposition have no reason to criticise the illiberality of this Act when the condemnations by Ministers of its invasions of civil liberties bestrew the pages of Hansard. This Act is obnoxious and unsuccessful. We have not been offered any convincing evidence to justify its continuing presence on the statute book. That is why we shall vote against it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Labour party will once again divide the House on this matter. They must know what will happen if they throw out the whole of the Act; for example, section 6, which provides the power to exclude non-citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including the very people about whom the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned. Those people might, for instance, be from Libya. That power is contained in the Act. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be throwing away a power which he has been urging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall give way later. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I want to make four main points. First, it is essential to have the Act. If anyone doubts that, he only needs to read the Jellicoe report or discuss the operation of the Act with those who are in the front line—the police—and who have to operate it. The Act is designed ultimately to protect the innocent, and it does have that effect. I would say without hesitation that there are innocent men and women who are alive today who would be dead if the police had not been able to exercise their powers under the Act.
On the matter of the exclusion orders, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is to reply to the debate, to confirm that he personally reviews these cases as they come up. It is important for the House to know that such a review is carried out by a Minister in each case.
Laws, however, are not enough. We can pass the continuance order, as I hope we shall, but the police need something more. They need to be properly equipped and trained to meet the threat, and they are entitled to the support of both sides of the House when they do this.
It


is in that specific connection that I want to comment on the appearance of police officers at Heathrow carrying sub-machine guns in order to carry out their anti-terrorist duties. I confess to being troubled by this. It is a new phenomenon in Britain. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend about it, and to senior members of the metropolitan police force and, just on balance, I have been persuaded that, regrettably, it is necessary.
There are, however, two matters that trouble the Police Federation and I think that I should put them on record. I can do no better than quote the chairman of the Police Federation and some remarks from the Police magazine. Mr. Curtis, the chairman, said:
It is totally absurd to make a high profile public announcement that a police unit, permanently armed, will perform anti-terrorist duties at Heathrow and, in the same announcement, to attempt to reassure the public by pointing out that the automatic weapons carried by these police officers may only be fired by them using the single shot operation, and that they must be fired from the shoulder.
He continued:
To put the entire responsibility for outshooting terrorists on the police, and at the same time to withdraw the special army units at Heathrow, looks to me like a weakening, not a strengthening of airport security.
I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I do not agree entirely with Mr. Curtis in all his criticism. But it would be useful if the Minister would address that matter when he replies to the debate.
The equipment that has been issued for this duty is the so called Heckler and Koch MP5 gun. I am advised that the weapon is a bad choice for such duty. I shall quote from the Police magazine, from an article written by a person who I believe is a firearms expert. He gets it right when he says:
As a fully automatic weapon of 9 mm calibre the Heckler and Koch MP5 was a bad choice … It is over penetrative, prone to ricochet and lacks stopping power.
I ask my hon. Friend, if not tonight, on some other occasion, to address that matter, because it is of real concern within the police service.
My next point concerns the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC is not in any doubt that it needs the Act and the other emergency powers that are available to it in Northern Ireland in order to protect innocent lives. Those hon. Members who have visited Ireland, as I have from time to time, will be conscious of the fact that in the face of the carnage that is committed by terrorists, the police need extraordinary powers with which to tackle it. But the RUC needs the support of the House in other ways. I am disturbed that the RUC's morale has been severely damaged by the attempts of its Chief Constable to gag its spokesman and prevent him from examining its views.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman from making important points, but this debate lasts for only one and a half hours and it should focus on the Act and its renewal. I ask you to rule that other issues, however important, should not be dealt with in the limited time available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am willing to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would have been wiser for the hon. Gentleman to let the Chair decide these matters rather than presume to decide them himself.
I return directly to the order. The argument of the right hon. Member for Gorton was based on a fallacy. He said that because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not set out in enormous detail examples of where the Act had resulted in offenders being brought to book, it was not effective. But it is the pre-emptive action by the police which is possible under the Act that frequently prevents people being killed. It is that pre-emptive aspect of the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself.
There is increasingly a need for international co-operation to tackle all kinds of terrorism. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that under the powers available to him he has been able to extend his ability to exclude to deal with terrorists from the middle east, and perhaps now to deal with those few members of the Sikh community who cause terrorist problems in this country.
That is good news, but it is not sufficient. It is necessary for the international conventions on terrorism to be pursued more vigorously. I shall shortly be sending my right hon. Friend a number of suggestions about how that could be done.
It is a tragedy that the Opposition are again voting against the renewal of the Act. I understand their reasons. They do them no credit. They fail to recognise that our fellow citizens live constantly under a threat and that the members of the police service, whom we ask to risk their lives to protect us, need this power and should not be denied it by the Opposition for political reasons.

Mr. Alex Carlile: We in the House who are revolted by terrorism in the United Kingdom and regard terrorists within our shores as the most despicable of our fellow creatures must recognise that there remains a need for some legislation to protect us from the terrorist scourge. Despite repeated and recent outrages, much has been achieved—some within the legislative framework that we are considering, and some outside it. It would be wrong to allow a debate on this subject to pass without repeating a tribute to those who bravely work, in and out of uniform, to rid us in the United Kingdom of that terrorist scourge.
The recent Anglo-Irish agreement, whatever its constitutional prospects—I do not wish to dwell on them tonight because the debate it is not about them—has shown us that co-operation between the British and Irish Governments can be developed within the context of the prevention of terrorism at least.
I welcome the recent meeting between Ministers responsible for justice and security in the two countries. I also welcome the breadth of their discussions, if the reports of them are reasonably accurate. Those discussions should be viewed as a beginning rather than as an end in themselves. I hope that in due course, and where necessary, we shall see legislation aimed at the prevention of terrorism and the detection of terrorists being enacted in like terms and at the same time here and in the Dail.
I welcome the Government's acceptance, which they signalled in 1984, of the need for far more effective monitoring of the operation of the prevention of terrorism provisions than had previously been the case, especially


bearing in mind the Government's acceptance in 1984 that it was to be regarded as a temporary and expedient Act rather than as a permanent unwelcome feature of our law. Indeed, I have been troubled—this is an observation, not a criticism—by the pessimism of the Home Secretary's prognosis earlier in the debate.
We now have the advantage of seeing and have had the time to consider carefully the second report by Sir Cyril Philips, the independent person—indeed, nobody could be more independent than he—appointed by the Secretary of State's predecessor to monitor the operation of the Act. Sir Cyril makes many deeply persuasive and cogent points which, while they do not go to the whole root of the legislation, deserve less of a brush-aside response than they have received from the Government.
As the Home Secretary has recognised and, indeed, as is provided for under statute, it is possible to review parts of the Act while still renewing the remainder. It is regrettable that the Government have not at least given the House the opportunity to review separately the continuation of exclusion orders under sections 4 and 5, that is those relating to the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary made a realistic assessment in his reply to Sir Cyril Philips on 29 January. He said that exclusion orders, which are a form of internal restriction, if not of internal exile, in the United Kingdom
very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right to remind us of Lord Jellicoe's comment that the possibility of abolishing the power to exclude should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers. The Government should have offered the House that possibility tonight.
Sir Cyril Philips, in his report earlier this year, reminds us of four important changes in practice which have taken place since 1984, and it is right that the House should be reminded of them. First, he tells us that new exclusion orders have become less and less important as an effective means of preventing terrorism, and are of diminishing significance. That is his independent judgment, and we should pay proper respect to it.
Secondly, in the context of increasing emphasis on the need for general and co-ordinated action against terrorism, the strategy of transferring suspected terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another appears to have diminishing relevance and application. In other words, we should not be shunting terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another, because that achieves nothing. We should be, and have been, achieving the prevention of terrorism itself—a far more useful and important objective.
Thirdly, the police now have all the powers given to them by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which came fully into force on 1 January 1986. Those powers enable the police to detain and question suspected terrorists effectively in the context of criminal procedure and codes that apply equally to all of us. If possible, it is important that those who are suspected of terrorism should be questioned and detained within the same context as is applicable to the rest of us.
Fourthly, sections 4 and 5 are now available only against people who have not ordinarily resided in Great Britain and Northern Ireland continuously since 1982. Sir Cyril Philips believes that the high level of revocations in the current review demonstrates that the police are far

better informed and equipped than used to be the case. Exclusions which formerly appeared necessary are no longer deemed to be so.
For those reasons—this is not a whim of mine—Sir Cyril Philips recommended that Parliament should take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for exclusion order provisions and that as a first step the Home Secretary should give an undertaking to make no fresh orders. That is objective advice, and nothing could have been more.
Leaving aside Sir Cyril Philips's objective judgment, regrettably there is evidence in some cases of doubtful subjective factors. Doubtful judgments by individual police officers and officials have been given the status of truth without evidence to support them. The case of Mr. Guilfoyle, of which the Home Secretary is aware, is a worrying example. He was thrown straight back at his old associates, despite his declared desire to start a new life. It is a credit to the Home Office that the order against him was eventually revoked, but it is no credit to the Home Office or the police that the revocation was necessary. The original exclusion order made upon his release from prison was based on incorrect information. Because of the nature of the procedures under the Act, Mr. Guilfoyle had no opportunity to challenge the factors upon which the order was based until after his exclusion had been effected, and only because his solicitors in the Republic of Ireland worked unusually and especially hard and succesfully on the case.
Cases such as Mr. Guilfoyle's demonstrate that there is a danger of exacerbating the perception that the availability of exclusion orders constitutes anti- Irish legislation, thus worsening the risk of more and more terrible terrorist acts. The substantive law outwith the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is now stronger than it was in 1984. I confess readily to having been one of those who believed that the substantive law as contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act went too far. However, now that we have the Act, I do not hesitate to make proper use of it.
I share Sir Cyril Philips's view that the substantive law's strengthened state is sufficient not only to render exclusion as alien to our concept of justice as ever it was, but also otiose. I am surprised that the present Home Secretary does not give Sir Cyril the credit that his report deserves by putting it to the test, especially in relation to sections 4 and 5, by allowing them separate consideration.

Mr. Barry Porter: As a solicitor, I have listened with some interest to the legalistic arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should have provided us with the opportunity of considering these provisions afresh and objectively, but I must say reluctantly that I share the Home Secretary's view that it is not yet the time to abandon the provisions. I hope that the Opposition will consider the timing, not in a legalistic sense, but in a political sense. I shall restrict my remarks entirely to the effect that not approving the provisions would have in. the Province of Northern Ireland.
This is not the time or the place to discuss the details, justifications, attributes or otherwise of the Anglo-Irish agreement, but it is a proper time to show how that agreement is perceived in Northern Ireland by the two polarised parts of the community. Republicans, whether


constitutional or terrorist, see it as a toe in the door to ultimate Irish unity. Equally, the non-constitutional Unionists perceive it to be exactly the same thing.
On Easter Tuesday the marching season will begin in the Province of Ulster. If by that time there has been no arrangement between the constitutional Unionists—I regret their absence from the Chamber this evening—and the Government in relation to the agreement, the probability is that there will be violence, and not necessarily only from the provisional IRA. We must now start to consider the probability of violence in a big way from the Protestant paramilitaries. I am sure that the hon. Member who has recently been elected to represent Fermanagh would not disagree with my forecast.
If there is even a scintilla of truth in what I say, there is no reason at this stage to abandon the provisions of the Act and not to approve their continuance. Regardless of whether they are effective—there are arguments on both sides—and regardless of their effect on civil liberties, their abandonment would be seen as an abandonment by the House of its determination to defeat terrorism, whether it be republican or loyalist.
That is my fear. Let us consider the provisions during the coming year and let us see what happens, but in view of what is likely to happen in the Province, let us not abandon them now.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is as wrong about what he has just said as he was about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
We have heard almost no politics in the debate so far. The process is so mechanical. Many of us have been here since 1974 and have heard every melancholy renewal, enactment and re-enactment. The Act will run until 1989, and if we are still here in 1989, we know that we shall hear the same things. Ireland is a political problem, not a security problem, important though security is. Children in Northern Ireland have never known anything else; they were born in trouble. The reality is that Britain has never been able to hold down Ireland without armed force. Trouble was bound to break out again as long as the border remained. It is certain that it will continue for as long as it remains.
There is no doubt that the synthetic division of Ireland forced upon an unwilling people is at the root of it all, and until we handle that politically the problems will continue. The Act deepens and exacerbates the situation. It is and will continue to be the cause of a great deal of the killing. That is why I have always voted against it. The Labour party did not always vote against it and it was a long time before the bipartisan policy began partly to work itself out. People with an Irish background and especially with an Irish accent are suspect and feel threatened as a result of the Act. If they work in the trade union and Labour movement and are involved in legitimate actions such as struggles and strikes, they are particularly suspect. If they are relatives or friends of a detainee they are suspect.
Let us look at the matter of the excludees and the orders that they have to obey. As has been said, they have to leave Great Britain or be subject to criminal charges. They are not told the evidence against them, which is appalling, and

they have no opportunity to cross-examine those who are making the charges against them. They have no form of trial and no right of appeal.
During the debate on the Bill in another place Sir Cyril Philips was appointed to report to Parliament. In paragraph 20 of his report he says, and it is worth repeating:
There is no question that this power is objectionable in principle as being inconsistent with the right of a citizen to reside in and travel freely throughout the territory of which he is a citizen and is operating to deprive a person of an important civil right without a judicial hearing.
The Home Secretary said what a good man Sir Cyril Philips was. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, when Sir Cyril went a little farther and was really critical and asked for the power of exclusion to be removed, the Home Secretary changed his mind about him. When Sir Cyril Philips asked for that power to be removed, he described it as having "diminishing relevance of application." He argued:
The time would appear right for Parliament to take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for Sections 4 and 5 (exclusion of United Kingdom citizens)
with the intention of getting rid of them. That is just not going to happen. The Home Secretary wrote back within two days and said:
Exclusion powers very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties
But he said that he would do nothing about it.
There are many examples of injustice, and even the review procedure has inbuilt injustices. For instance, the exclusion order lapses after three years, subject to renewal. But life intervenes and the reality is that many of the people who are excluded have moved house in that time, and many of them think that three years ends the whole thing. But renewal could take place and they would not know about it. That makes them criminals and they could be subject to imprisonment. That is one of the things that the National Council for Civil Liberties brought to our attention, particularly in the last day or two. If the order had been renewed, such people are in grave difficulty. We must look at that, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us some guidance.
It is almost impossible to prove that this Act has done any good, but it causes the perpetration of appalling injustice and is fraught with inbuilt miscarriages of justice. Two dreadful cases come to mind immediately and were the subject of early-day motions. The first case is that of Dr. Maire O'Shea. I knew her some 30-odd years ago when she used to baby-sit in my home when we had our first boy. I was staggered when she was tried. We put down an early-day motion. This good doctor, this psychiatrist who worked in our local hospital and who was beloved in the area, was found to be innocent.
The other case involved the Maguire family. It gave me immense pleasure to read the early-day motion in the names of the hon. Members for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). They realised what a terrible and brutal injustice had been done to that whole family. Lord Fitt visited the family in gaol when Guiseppe Conlan was dying. Mr. Conlan told him that he was innocent. The evidence on which that family were gaoled was appalling. That is the sort of thing that happens under the Act.
I shall vote against the order, as I have always voted against it. The Act is a draconian and unjust measure that


intensifies the problems facing us all. It is a provocation. People are angry that such an injustice is perpetrated. The Act will continue the killing, not prevent it.
I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against this terrible measure tonight.

Mr. David Ashby: I speak now, as I have spoken since the introduction of the Act, in expressing a deep regret, which I am sure is felt by all in the House, that this Act is necessary. We have always appreciated that it is a denial of some of the basic human rights that this House has done so much to preserve. It is only in the most extraordinary circumstances that we have agreed to its continuance.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary echoed the words of his predecessor and welcomed the fact that the Act is always subject to annual review. When it was introduced, that was not the intention. During its Standing Committee stage, a number of us pressed for an annual review, and the then Home Secretary readily agreed. It is necessary to look on the Act as a temporary measure, which should be abolished at the first opportunity. I accept, however, that that opportunity is not here today.
I do not think that there is any validity in the comment that exclusion orders are a hardship and burden on those subject to them. I suspect that those concerned are in the forefront of politics and are well aware of the order and its effects on himself and his family. However, I find exclusion orders abhorrent, and I echo the words of Sir Cyril Philips on that.
We must remember that Sir Cyril conducts an annual review. He is a worthy gentleman who carries out an independent review. I should like to think that the burden of proof is always upon the Government, not upon Sir Cyril. He is the independent person who has investigated the workings of the Act. He produced an excellent report, in which he said that exclusion orders were a power that should be removed and that their phasing out should start now. The burden is on the Government to show that there is a need for the orders. I hope that a great deal of thought is given to that part of the report with a view to implementing it during the next year.
I am mindful that much is said about the impact of the Act which, as Sir Cyril has shown in his report, is not true. Last year, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that it was a convenient way of removing political activists from the streets. He said that its powers had been used against South African nationalist groups. Sir Cyril examined that carefully; he was satisfied that the powers under the Act had not been used inappropriately and that there had been no breach of the assurances that had been given by Ministers.
Sometimes one feels that extravagant claims are made. I do not know whether the claim about the hunting fraternity of Daventry was extravagant, but I find it worrying. I hope that the right hon. Member for Gorton will refer all the facts to Sir Cyril so that they may be part of his review this year. I hope that he will be able to satisfy us. If the Act has been used in that way, it is regrettable.
I repeat that there is an independent review, and it is important that we should have it. It is necessary to continue the Act, but where the independent review finds

that a power should be abolished, the burden is on us to disagree because the independent review prima facie is a failure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If there is one aspect of the Act's implementation which exposes the hollow rhetoric and patent insincerity of the Government it is their inability to implement sections 10 and 11. Reference has been made to the few prosecutions that there have been, but a considerable number of prosectuions could have been brought against insurance companies in the City who sell kidnap insurance where the moneys paid go to the Irish Republican Army, for whatever purposes.
Section 10(1) reads:
If any person—

(a) solicits or invites any other person to give, lend or otherwise make available, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property; or
(b) receives or accepts from any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property,

intending that it shall be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
I submit that control risks represent soliciting and inviting other persons to give money to the Irish Republican Army and, therefore, are in default of the Act and should be prosecuted. I ask the Minister to prosecute them.
Section 10(2) provides:
If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that it will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
I submit that the words "whether for consideration" in that subsection relate to the release of kidnap victims. Therefore, the insurance companies who are selling the insurance policies in the City are in default of section 10(2) under "Miscellaneous offences" in part III of the Act and should be prosecuted. The authorities refuse to prosecute them. They know they are breaking the law. The Government are being selective in their implementation of the law.
When the young men we send to Ulster—

Ms. Clare Short: Northern Ireland.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: —Northern Ireland are shot at, the public in this country should know that the funding of the munitions that are used by the Irish Republican Army comes in part from insurance companies in the City of London. The loss of lives is being funded by British institutions which should be prosecuted.

Mr. Clive Soley: The speeches and actions of the Home Secretary and of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) show how easy it is for those who see themselves as convinced democrats to end up eroding the very democracy that they seek to defend. I shall not go at length into the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, because much of it was out of order, but I have yet to hear him do anything other than come down—on balance, as he would say—against the extension of the erosion of the democratic rights that


we have seen eroded over the years. He is always on the wrong side of the scales and the Home Secretary has joined him there.
In his opening comments, the Home Secretary said that this Act was of desperate seriousness to our democracy. If that is so, why are we debating it, yet again, for just one and a half hours between 10.30 pm and midnight? The Home Secretary said when he wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that he rejected Sir Cyril Philips's suggestion that exclusion orders should be dropped. That recommendation was central to Sir Cyril's report. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said, it is up to the Government to prove that it is necessary to continue with exclusion orders.
In his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary made it clear that he had not given sufficient warning to Opposition parties in allowing only 10 days for us to give evidence to Sir Cyril Philips. The Home Secretary regretted that fact in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and in a further letter he rightly corrected another error. The Member of the House of Lords whom he had described as a member of the Labour party was in fact an independent peer, Lord Henderson. I do not make that as a cheap point. I make it because the Government at no time made it clear to the Opposition parties in this House that they were to be given just 10 days in which to give evidence.
If the Home Secretary really regards the Act as so desperately serious, will he ensure that in future the Opposition are given proper notice of the latest date by which representations must be made to Sir Cyril Philips so that we may treat the matter with the seriousness that it deserves?
In the very limited time available, I make just a couple of key points. In so doing, I can do little better than to reiterate one or two of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his opening comments.
The Government argue that they need the Act to get information on people whom they can later convict as a result of the Act. In other words, they recognise what many of us have recognised for years—that this Act should really be called the Collection of Information Act. Inasmuch as the Government can point to 32 people whom the courts since 1974 have found guilty and seen fit to sentence to more than a year's imprisonment, the Government have that part of the argument on their side. They can say that the 32 people who committed acts serious enough to warrant more than a year's imprisonment are evidence that the Act is working, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton pointed out, it is not good evidence or hard evidence.
Against that, however, we must set the fact—the Government never address themselves to this—that no fewer than 5,324 people out of a total of 6,098 have not been proceeded against in any way at all. The important point is that those 5,324 individuals have families, friends and contacts in the rest of this country and in Ireland. By alienating them from the forces of law and order, the Government are doing more to undermine the fight against terrorism than they achieve by using the Act as a means of collecting information.
Even leaving aside the underlying arguments in the context of Ireland, which I do not have time to cover today, the whole philosophy of any paramilitary unit operating in the way in which the Republican and, to some extent, the Unionist ones operate is to seek to represent those people whom they can alienate from the state that is seeking to win their loyalty.
This is not just a matter of collecting information; it is a battle for hearts and minds. To win that battle, we must address ourselves to Northern Ireland and our view of what position it ought to have in the future and to the people, their relatives and friends, who are so alienated from the forces of law and order that they feel that they cannot commit themselves to the forces of law and order in the fight against terrorism.
Much more needs to be said, but I shall end on this note. If we were facing only international terror from other countries, we would never consider this Act to be necessary. I cannot believe that even this Government would continue with the Act if that were so. We are doing it because of Northern Ireland. Until we address the causes of that problem, and until we address how we are alienating so many of the people whose support we need to resolve that problem, we will continue to get ourselves in increasing difficulty. Above all, we will continue to erode the democaracy of which this country was once proud.
The Home Secretary said that the exclusion order was not internal exile. In all but word, it is. It is a power that has not existed in Britain since mediaeval time. It is time that we got rid of it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): This Act helps the police to fight the evil of terrorism. It helps to prevent terrorism. One need only examine the use of the powers last year and the successes of the police last year—with the Rubens hotel bomb and the threat to our seaside resorts—to know that it helps.
The contentions of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were quite extraordinary. He said that the Act is a failure because terrorism continues. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous proposition. One might just as well say that the criminal law is useless because crime continues. Acts of terrorism have been prevented.
The right hon. Gentleman compounded his folly by making this ridiculous remark: the Act is being used, but that does not prove that it is needed. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 20 per cent. of those detained under the Act in 1985 were subsequently charged. There were 94 extended detentions—detentions as a result of the decision of the Secretary of State—and only 30 of the people involved were not charged. Who, in the face of those facts, can say that the Act did not help in the fight against terrorism?
The need for legislation is regrettable. We must not underestimate the inroads on ordinary civil liberties which the Act makes, but we have to keep a sense of proportion. In asking not just for the exclusion powers but for all powers to go, the Opposition have lost all sense of proportion.
To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), the exclusion powers are exercised by the Secretary of State personally. The Government accept Lord Jellicoe's view


that exclusion should be the first power to go. It is an objectionable power and we shall continue to do all that we can to keep down the number of orders and ensure that they are made only in the most serious cases. It is our job to protect innocent people from the murderous attacks of cunning and vicious terrorists.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) that the Government are reluctantly, but firmly, convinced that exclusion orders will remain, for at least the next 12 months, an essential instrument of protection. Seven orders were made last year. That is not many, but an increase on the previous year. If the power were discontinued just now, we would be issuing a warm welcome to this country to more than 200 evil people who have been—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 109.

Division No. 82]
[12 midnight


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Favell, Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Benyon, William
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Galley, Roy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, J.


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cartwright, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Crouch, David
Kennedy, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert
Knowles, Michael





Lang, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Latham, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pollock, Alexander


Lester, Jim
Porter, Barry


Lightbown, David
Portillo, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lord, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rhodes James, Robert


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Maclean, David John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maclennan, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waddington, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Wall, Sir Patrick


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Whitfield, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wood, Timothy


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norris, Steven
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Godman, Dr Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.


Boyes, Roland
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hume, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Janner, Hon Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Leighton, Ronald


Clelland, David Gordon
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McGuire, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr John
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dixon, Donald
Mallon, Seamus


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dubs, Alfred
Martin, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Nellist, David


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie






Pike, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Redmond, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Mark Fisher and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

European Community (Energy Objectives)

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7163/85 and endorses the adoption of new Community Energy objectives for the period to 1995 as references for the guidance of Member States.
This is the second opportunity that the House has had in recent weeks to debate Community energy issues. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly identified two documents as being of sufficient interest to put before the House as a whole. The first of these, the proposed new rules governing state aids for the coal industry, was debated on Wednesday 6 February. The second, before us this evening, addresses a general framework for the development of all energy resources and offers guidance on the way member states' energy policies might develop over the next decade.
The document before us is entitled "New Community Energy Objectives". It starts with a summary of the changes that have taken place in the availability of energy supplies since the Community agreed in June 1980 on the energy objectives for 1990.
Attention inevitably focuses on the radical changes in the oil market over the past five years. Since the last oil crisis, two trends have become apparent. First, the demand for oil is considerably less, and this reflects a greater medium-term responsiveness to price than anyone expected five years ago. That responsiveness has been marked by the successful introduction of improved energy efficiency technology, and continued switching to other fuels, notably gas in the domestic sector and nuclear and coal in electricity generation. Secondly, oil production in non-OPEC countries has continued to increase, enhancing the availability and diversity of supplies on the world market.
As a result of those changes in the energy market, the objectives outlined for 1990 have already largely been achieved. Oil imports into the Community have been cut by half over the past 10 years. Energy efficiency measures have ended the automatic relationship between energy consumption and economic growth. At the same time solid fuels and nuclear now account for over three quarters of Community electricity generation. The degree of energy self-sufficiency within the Community has increased significantly.
Despite those achievements, the document fairly warns against complacency. It argues that oil demand may once again threaten to overtake available supplies. Therefore, our long-term security of supply must continue to depend upon a diversity of sources of energy, traditional as well as new. The potential for a broad spread of economic investment needs to be maintained.
It is against that background that the Commission proposes that the Community adopt new objectives for 1995. The proposals fall into two categories—"horizontal" objectives, common to all fuels, such as greater integration of the Community energy market, a balance between energy and environmental needs and the promotion of technology; and "sectoral" objectives—a


phrase that I find easier to understand—covering each of the sources of energy, including the important matter of energy efficienty.
It may be helpful if I set out briefly the Government's approach to the setting of those energy objectives. At one extreme there are dangers in having a central plan, a kind of blueprint, aimed at matching supply and demand, fuel by fuel, market by market, and so on for many years.
Experience and history have proved to us that no such plan can ever pass the test of time. All attempts to forecast the energy future with any accuracy have inevitably turned out to be wrong. Grand designs have had to be abandoned. The energy market regularly confounds forecasters because it is, in part, increasingly international. It is extremely complex and, as recent events have proved to us, is subject to violent changes. If we allowed inflexible central plans to be imposed, it would involve high costs to the economy. Such plans would be extremely vulnerable to the unexpected. I do not believe that the task of energy management is well suited to government at national or at international level.
The best mechanism for deciding the best use of energy and for coping with change is the market place. It consists of a myriad of transactions between customers and producers. It is able to adapt to new circumstances far more quickly and efficiently than any bureaucracy. The Government do not therefore believe in attempts to predetermine artificially the energy balance. That should be decided by competition in the market between the various fuels. But it is important that fuel prices should reflect the true economic costs. The market should be as free from price distortions as possible, or customers will not be able to maximise the efficiency with which they use energy. There is also a need to pay heed to external costs, such as social and environmental factors.
Against that background, the Government have always regarded the Community objectives—those agreed in 1980 as well as those under discussion now—as points of reference informing one of member states' own energy policies. The objectives are not intended as binding commitments or as targets which must be reached. The energy resources available to member states and the pattens of consumption within each country differ too widely for uniform goals to make sense for the Community as a whole.
The United Kingdom for example, benefits from indigenous availability of all the major sources of energy—coal, oil, gas and nuclear. Not only can we supply our own needs, but we are substantial exporters to our Community partners. Our energy conservation and renewables programmes are well advanced, reflecting our role as major consumers as well as producers of energy. Other member states, such as the Netherlands, are also significant energy exporters. That is perhaps the one Community country with which we can draw the nearest parallel to Britain. But others still are without resources of their own and rely heavily on imports from within and without the Community. Given this diversity, there cannot be one common objective equally applicable to all member states. Therefore, we need a set of agreed objectives that provide a qualitative assessment of energy priorities. That is an approach that has been fully endorsed by the Energy Council when it last met in November to discuss the objectives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said then that the objectives should act as a helpful set of

references for discussing the polices of member states. They are also an indication of the trends which are developing in the Community as a whole.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I am at a loss. The hon. Gentleman talks about the benefits of objectives and then says that there is no intention of taking any notice of the objectives if the needs of the national interest prevail. If that is the case, why are we here at this hour in the morning discussing objectives when, at the end of the day, they will be thrown through the window?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is not following what I am saying. They are important objectives against which we can test our policy. I said that it does not make sense to have a single common policy when energy supply and demand is so varied throughout the Community. I talked about objectives for such things as greater self-sufficiency, less reliance on imports from outside the Community, the development of other resources such as renewables and so on. They are all objectives but the degree to which they are achieved is bound to vary in different member states. I think that that can be easily illustrated, as I will attempt to do.
Having dealt with the horizontal aspects, I shall deal with the sectoral objectives. Those suggested in the document seek to break down the trends of general policy into their component fuels. Some figures are suggested, including a possible level of net oil imports and a ceiling on oil use in power stations. Those quantifications are illustrative and can be helpful as markers against which to judge market movements and the relevance of the objectives over time.
It would be wrong, however, to attach importance to any particular figures or to regard them as significant in any policy sense. As I said to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), an example of where this could be misleading is the attempt to set a target figure or range, for example, in nuclear generating capacity. A figure of 40 per cent. has been suggested by the Commission. That is no more than a crude averaging of different nuclear capacities across the Community. France has twice this capacity, the United Kingdom less than half, and five member states have no nuclear generating capacity at all. To try to quote such an unrepresentative average is liable to be misinterpreted as a national objective for each member state. The Government do not therefore think it appropriate to illustrate the nuclear sectoral objective in that way.
The proposed objectives by their nature seek to take a long-term view of energy developments in what we all know is an uncertain world. I hope that I have outlined the advantages of the objectives as well as the dangers of discussing such a document. Provided that Governments avoid the trap of believing that their forecasts will be realised, there is advantage in looking at the range of energy options and the directions the market might take over the next few years.
The opportunity to debate the objectives is not only valuable but timely. The Council of Energy Ministers has already discussed them twice. Discussion in Brussels is focussing on the key issues and the Council is likely to be called upon to decide a final text within the next couple of months. This short debate gives the House the opportunity to express its views. I welcome that opportunity, and I commend the document to hon. Members.

Mr. Stanley Orme: As the Minister of State said, we are debating proposals for an EEC energy policy and its objectives, even though the Government have no coherent energy policy. That is the debate's starting point. We are talking about an energy plan—a blueprint—which the Minister has rejected. That makes nonsense of the document.
Britain is in a unique position with regard to energy requirements and production within the EEC, because we are the only country that produces its own oil, gas and coal. As the Minister said, other countries produce some or none of those commodities.
I have read, as the Minister probably has, the last debate on the EEC directive in 1979, which led to the 1980 discussions with the EEC. In the 1979 debate the House was considering what the position would be in 1985, which is just a few weeks ago. The forecast bore no relation to what happened in 1985 and what we face in 1986. I am worried, because if the EEC had its own way we could end up with an energy policy which could be as damaging to Britain as the common agricultural policy is. We must guard against that.
The document does not address itself to the position in Europe, which is faced with falling oil prices. Will recent events be discussed when the Council of Ministers meets, and if so, what line will the Government take? We are entitled to know, because tonight's debate is to enable us to give the Government our views in time for the meeting of the Council of Ministers. I am not clear, from what the Minister said, what the Government's attitude will be, not least because oil prices will be an important factor.
Britain is an oil producing country with a substantial energy surplus. I am worried about British refining capacity. It is being closed on a large scale, not least because of some of the actions of our EEC partners, for example, in Rotterdam. That is having an effect on refineries in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. It is undermining the industry's ability to export added-value downstream products. Given its indigenous oil supplies, the United Kingdom should be exporting refined products to the rest of the Community and elsewhere, rather than merely refining for the British market. Instead, large amounts of North sea crude oil are being exported to be refined outside the United Kingdom. Much of it then returns to Britain as refined oil or added-value products.
The EEC proposals advocate greater interconnection between gas and electricity systems and increased trade. Because of the privatisation of the gas industry, we have been asking the Government for some considerable time what their attitude is to the import and export of gas. Will the Minister tell us the Government's attitude to the EC proposals? Will he advise the House of the Government's position on the crucial issue of depletion policy for both gas and oil?
A major aspect of the document, and one of the only relevant firm figures in it relates to nuclear policy. I was pleased to see that the Minister rubbished that. The document proposes that nuclear generation of electricity should be almost doubled by the year 1995, providing 40 per cent. of our electricity. We are worried about that. We are self-sufficient in coal, and we oppose the development of the pressurised water reactor. We believe that the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power in the

United Kingdom should not increase. We oppose the document's proposal, and, indeed, the Minister made nonsense of it.
Five countries in the EC do not have any nuclear power. France has 80 or 90 per cent., and we produce about 20 per cent. During the miners' strike that was increased to 25 or 28 per cent. Although the document may be for consideration only, there may be pressures in the EC to develop nuclear power and to impose that type of development on countries, such as the United Kingdom. I put our opposition to that firmly on the record.
Recently, we debated the EC proposals for the coal industry. It is impossible to discuss European energy objectives without referring to coal. The document continues to accept the importation of coal into Europe, while advocating the restructuring of our industry, and maintains that the price of imported coal will continue to be set by competition in the world market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out on 5 February, coal imported from South Africa, Poland and Colombia is being dumped in Europe at prices that bear no relation to market forces. We cannot accept that. At the Council of Ministers' meeting the Minister must put that point firmly.
The document also calls for a 25 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency. I would have thought that the Minister would want to say something about that, especially as his Department has embarked on Energy Efficiency Year, and perhaps he will do so when he replies.
The document promotes the increased use of fluoridised bed combustion and other technologies which would make coal burning more environmentally acceptable. That is an interesting proposal, and I should like to hear the Government's attitude to it. Will the Government put money into such a development? What about developments in coal gasification and liquefaction which the document advocates? If there is a member state which can develop those two processes, it is the United Kingdom, with its large surplus of coal. That is where the future of coal lies.
The EC document advocates the continuing promotion of research and development and the demonstration of new technologies and renewables. Will the Minister assure the House that the so-called hot rocks experiment in Cornwall will continue to receive funding from the Department of energy, and that the expertise developed there will not be transferred to the United States because the Government are unwilling to continue support? That is another matter that should be raised in the Council of Ministers. The people involved in the development in Cornwall, which is an area in need of employment, are threatened with unemployment because of the removal of subsidies and support.
Combined heat and power is another idea that should be developed. We should say to the EC that that is what we are doing, and what we will continue to do, and that we do not accept a policy that binds us in an impossible position to other member states.
Although the document discusses a framework for coherent national energy policies, it is not feasible. As I have said, the Government do not have an energy policy. They do not develop a policy or intervene to propose a policy.
We believe that the debate is important, but we ask the Government to protect British interests in the EC. That is


their job. When they protect British interests, they protect hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom energy industry. We await the report from the Council of Ministers, and we hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the points made by the Opposition this evening.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is typical that we are debating this subject in a packed House at peak viewing time, given that Britain is the most energy-rich country in Europe and that how we manage our energy resources is the most significant and important basis of our economy. I am not surprised at the hour, because the timing of the debate is in accord with the Government's general attitude to this important industry and its importance to the British economy. It suits the Government's book very well to have a debate when nobody is listening and nobody can take on board the irresponsibility of the Government's policy.
The Minister moved the motion in the following terms: we should take note of the document, pick out what suits us, leave out what does not suit us and allow the market to sort out everything. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has said, for the Government to take any view on a European energy strategy or policy they would first be required to have a policy of their own. No such policy exists and the Government pride themselves on that fact.
The background to the debate of events this week highlights more than ever the need for an energy strategy. The oil price has collapsed from a peak in 1979 of just under 40 dollars a barrel to about 15 dollars a barrel and it is still falling. The implications of that are extremely significant, not least to the coal industry. In the short term, a free marketeer might be able to say, "Coal is no longer a competitive fuel. It is no longer viable. Indeed, perhaps we should be burning more oil and producing less coal." Taking the logic forward, he might say, "We need to close even more collieries, it may be time to convert existing coal-fired power stations to oil and we should build new oil-fired power stations." Why do we not do that? Presumably, in the short term, the Minister will say, "This is an aberration in the market, and we must see whether it is a long-term trend."
That uncertainty requires the Government to take a strategic view over a long period of approximately what mix of fuels we should use and how we should handle them. What should be the role for coal, oil, nuclear power and gas? Any responsible Government would do that. It is not a matter of saying, as the Minister tried to suggest, "We the Conservative Government believe that the market can sort it all out, and those terrible Socialists want to plan every detail." We need a framework within which at least broad planning is considered while recognising the factors of the market, but not the short-term volatility which is based on completely unpredictable and uncertain events. The Government must have a much more coherent policy for all our energy requirements.
The EC document states that the objective for the 1990s is that oil production in the Community should be less than one third of energy consumption from oil imports. If that is the case, we are entitled to ask whether our present level of production is compatible with that objective. If the Government's objective is to rip as much oil out of the North sea as fast as possible, regardless of the price, what will happen in 1998 when there is less oil left? Does that not contradict the Community's objectives? What

happened to the objective of net self-sufficiency? Last year, we produced 37 million tonnes more than our self-sufficiency requirements, and the amount is increasing.
It is worth taking account of what has happened in the oil market during the past six months and what the implications are for the United Kingdom economy. In 1985, the average price of oil was $29 a barrel. Our average production was about 2·5 million barrels a day, and the pound was worth, on average, $1·25. The average daily value of oil production in 1985 was £58 million. The packed Galleries show how important that is to the British economy.
However, the price or oil is now $15 a barrel. Production is still at that peak—for the calculation, let us say that it is still 2·5 million barrels a day, although it is slightly higher. The dollar is falling against the pound, which is an added complication. We used to be able to console ourselves when the oil price fell by saying that the exchange rate would substantially compensate us for that. That is not happening now. On the contrary, the pound is strengthening against the dollar, further aggravating the effect of the falling oil price. The average daily value of oil production is now only £27 million—a reduction of £31 million—or 53 per cent. in a few months.
No wonder the Chancellor is worried about his Budget. No wonder the Government's whole economic strategy threatens to fall to tatters against that kind of change. Against that background, the reaction of the Government is total and abject unconcern and complacency. They say, "It is nothing to do with us: is is entirely a factor for the market and there is nothing we can do about it." This is the single most important product of Britain. Its price and production level is crucial to the basis of our economy, yet the Government says it has nothing to do with them.
As recently as yesterday the members of OPEC launched another appeal to the non-OPEC countries to meet and discuss the implications of the falling oil price and current levels of production. I tabled some questions to the Government asking what representations they had received from OPEC and Saudi Arabia and what responses the Government had given. The reply that I got was none and none. I asked, were the Government prepared to meet and discuss the matter and the answer was one word, no. The Government are not prepared even to discuss the matter. That is an absurd position. Even if the discussions are not clear, and even if the outcome is not certain, to refuse to talk seems utterly unbelievable. That stance is in direct conflict with the document we are debating. Paragraph 28 on page 15 says:
It is therefore right that the Community should continue with its policy of establishing good relations with countries and inter-governmental bodies in this region
that is, the Gulf region. It goes on:
The long-standing relations with the OAPEC should be further strengthened, and arrangements for exchanging information with OPEC should be established.
It is difficult to see how that Community objective could conceivably be achieved by a Government that are not even prepared to discuss or admit that any contact can or should take place with these organisations. That is an absurd position that most people outside this country cannot comprehend and regard as complacent irresponsibility.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East touched on the issue of nuclear power and the objective that the Community should aim for 40 per cent. of its electricity generation from nuclear power. In Scotland, a new nuclear


power station is to be commissioned at Torness. Before that power station comes on stream, we in Scotland already derive 40 per cent. of our electricity from nuclear power, and the Government are anxious to stoke it up even further. The Minister told us that perhaps he did not wish to object to the 40 per cent. objective. Why do we in Scotland have to be singled out as the only part of the Community that has not only achieved but exceeded that percentage?
Nuclear power is topical at the moment, perhaps regrettably. The nuclear power industry is beleaguered, and everybody I meet in that industry is demoralised and on the defensive. We have established nuclear power stations over the years, and when we embarked on this new nuclear technology, the objective was to get into the peaceful application of a technology that was developed for warlike uses. In the 1950s there was a great deal of enthusiasm for that peaceful objective and a great deal of money was put into it. But after decades of investment in the industry, we have not got the results that we might reasonably have expected from that substantial investment.
Worse than that, it might have been well argued by any Government that, taking a long view, we possibly ought to be in this technology, that by definition oil was a finite resource and that most of our basic energy resources would eventually run out, and perhaps in one or two generations we would inevitably have to make more use of nuclear power.
That argument would be extremely cogent if we were developing British technology, but all that we shall do in the meantime is import American technology with which the Americans themselves are not prepared to continue. Given that we have oil, gas, coal, wind, wave and an opportunity for greater energy efficiency, I cannot understand why we are going ahead with the development of an expensive nuclear power station using imported technology.

Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the alternatives open to us. Is he aware that the firm James Howden Ltd. recently won considerable export orders from the United States for wind turbines? Indeed, the development of wind energy in my constituency and other parts of the United Kingdom is showing great potential. In view of the small amount of investment in the development of wind energy compared with the vast amount put into nuclear energy, especially the fast reactor, over many years, would it not be a better investment of public funds if more resources were chanelled into alternative energy sources rather than continually feeding the nuclear energy industry?

Mr. Bruce: I agree with my hon. Friend. On more than one occasion in this House I have said that if the alternative technologies were given an investment comparable to that for nuclear power, we might make more rapid progress and go some way towards meeting the EEC's objectives.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. I am concerned that, although the Liberal party is usually consistent on this matter, the other half of the alliance appears to take an entirely different view.

Mr. Bruce: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to make such an intervention in the week when the Labour party spokesman on the environment is taking a diametrically opposite view to his party on what is happening at Sellafield.
My position has been, and remains, consistent. I think that, in the long term, we are likely to need nuclear power. However, I wish to make it quite clear that the nuclear industry has had a great deal of investment, but, as yet, has failed to solve many of the problems or to produce the advantages and advances that were promised. If we are not developing British technology—which we will not be doing if we opt for the PWR—it is time that we switched our investment into other areas of energy that show greater potential.
I will go further than that. After the problems at Sellafield, there is a total lack of confidence among the public in the industry's ability to handle reprocessing technology. Against that background, it would be crass foolhardiness to go ahead with the reprocessing facility at Dounreay when there are so many troubles at Sellafield. It will not be possible to persuade the people of Scotland that that development will be in their interests. Indeed, Sellafield should be shut down until there is a full inquiry into its safety.
In the process of forcing the pace, the Government may well endanger the survival of Dounreay as an entity because they will draw attention to the whole industry and its problems. That would be a pity because, as I have said, in the long run we may well need that technology. If we pull out of the development altogether, we may regret it. The Government are not acting as a friend of the industry; they are forcing the pace in a way that is contrary to the clear will of the public. That is both unnecessary and unjustified. Now is the time to call a halt and to put our investment into areas where there will be a much greater productive return.
I do not apologise for taking some time to speak. I feel—although the Government clearly do not—that this is a subject of vital importance that needs to be debated more fully. It is the difference between bankruptcy and survival for this country, yet the Government try to duck and dodge their responsibility, and have done so ever since they came to power.
The market cannot be left alone. There must be some strategic input from the Government about what the right energy mix should be. The EEC, even if we choose to differ on one or two points, acknowledges that a strategic objective is necessary for the Community.
For the Government to come here and make the comments that they have, especially given their record, is a piece of cheek. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing the Government's explanation for the lack of an energy policy and their unwillingness to acknowledge that in the real world responsible Governments would at least take a responsible view, especially in volatile and uncertain situations where the market can destroy long-term strategic opportunities. It cannot be allowed to take its full toll regardless of any of the implications.
I welcome any opportunity to advance thinking on energy planning. Last week I was at an open seminar organised by the alliance and attended by some people who are not members of any political party but who are actively involved in the energy industry. One person who was anxious to point out that he was not a member of a political party said that we will not get a realistic advance


on energy policy and energy planning which will utilise our rich resources until we get rid of this Government. That has to be our objective. Although the Minister will no doubt attack me and try to tear me to bits, I believe that he and his Government are an obstacle to the good management of our crucial resources.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, particularly in his concluding remarks. I am glad that I did not attend the alliance seminar on energy policy. Anyone who was not directly involved must have left it in a state of bewilderment, if not political schizophrenia.
The hon. Gentleman was right to deplore the time at which this debate is taking place. The Minister might like to sleep, but he will subscribe to the view that it is in the interests of the Government that serious debates are better held late at night when they escape attention.
It is interesting that the Community can claim to be in sight of the achievement of its 1980 agreed objectives. Possibly they were sufficiently imprecise as to facilitate achievement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was right to offer criticism and to suggest that some of the commitments may originally have been too sweeping. Nevertheless, one might view the current state of energy policy in the EC as in some ways being a little more intelligent than our own. The objectives of the EC are imperfect, and perhaps imprecise, but there is a positive aspect to the approach. The document before us demonstrates that on balance it is better to have a policy. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have had any discernible or intelligent policy.
Obviously the Community's assessment is broadly based. We may differ from, and need to challenge, some of the objectives, but I trust that the target of a further 25 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency will be reached. The United Kingdom should make a marked contribution after six years spent largely on brutal reliance upon pricing as the principal determinant of conservation.
One advantage of the Community's approach is that it does not depend upon a hand to mouth response to movements in oil prices. If Her Majesty's Government were to allow oil price levels to determine long-term policy, the national advantage could be enormous. It is timely, therefore, for Europe to maintain the view that imports of oil must be reduced and reliance upon oil must contract. I hope that that view will have some influence upon our Government, because they need, and have needed for some time, to examine urgently their depletion rate and to curtail the now less profitable but still excessive level of oil exports.
It would be stretching charity too far to refrain from commenting that the oil trade, with its too high place in the world oil trade league, has not served us well, since the yield has contributed to short-term requirements, while at the same time our levels of industrial investment have been dreadful.
Investment in coal has been upped and maintained—the Government have frequently boasted about that. That has created an opportunity which logic suggests should be grasped in full to accord with the EEC's objective of maintaining or increasing the share of energy consumption commanded by coal. I am not sure that the Government have fulfilled their obvious obligation to remind Europe firmly of the staggering achievements of the coal industry.

The closure of high-cost capacity has created sharp distress in the coalfields, but it has reduced costs. Unfortunately, the Community does not seem to be fully aware of the change.
There is an urgent need for Ministers to correct any wrong impression such as that implied in paragraph 31, which refers to production costs exceeding imported prices. That misconception must be challenged. The Government must stress that the Community cannot expect coal to be produced in Europe at below the price at which it is sold in Europe, which may in turn be below the price at which it is produced abroad. We must insist that some priority is given to indigenous energy and not allow a substantial dependency to develop upon dumped coal from abroad.
United Kingdom coal prices are now not far off, or are, perhaps just about the same as, the cost of imported coal. It must be accepted that that is a substantial achievement and provides grounds for further consideration of the matter in Brussels. At the same time, the point that I made the other day must be strengthened and acted upon. Our French partners must be advised that they cannot pretend to command the diplomatic initiative in deploring conditions in South Africa, while at the same time developing businesses to enhance the trade of South African coal in Europe.
Paragraphs 46 and 53 are very important, in that they relate to the development of technology to show that the environmental impact of fossil fuel combustion can be dramatically changed. For this reason, we should hesitate before indulging in any obsessive concentration on nuclear development. I believe that the economy, the environment and the international interest could be very well served if new coal-fired generating capacity is developed embodying the latest available technology in fluidised bed and low nitrogen combustion, as a sign of good faith to our Scandinavian neighbours, which may well have substantial commercial advantages. That would also assist: the industrial base, which needs orders, and maintain a capacity which would continue to be internationally significant.
Given the wealth of our energy self-sufficiency the United Kingdom does not need to go far along the road towards a 40 per cent. contribution from nuclear power, especially in view of the need to avoid the huge costs involved in such development and the reliance on the present generation of nuclear reactors. As I have said, we must have industrial orders, and a full and vigorous programme of CHP would be welcomed. There should also be further development of renewable reserves, which merit a higher place in the Government's assessments.
The national interest has certainly not been so well served in Britain as in Europe. Too much has been left to market forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East recognised this when he reminded us of the astonishing and dreadful ebb of United Kingdom refinery capacity. The figures reveal the stark horror of that decline. In 1979 we produced 77 million tonnes of oil offshore, and we refined 84·5 million tonnes. In the first 11 months of 1985 we produced 117 million tonnes—an enormous increase—but the amount refined in United Kingdom refineries fell to 65 million tonnes. That appalling decline makes a mockery of the oil policies pursued by the Government, who surrendered responsibility and sat supinely by while the effect of cartels developed enormously to the nation's disadvantage.
It is time that we expressed a firm view in Europe, but it is also time that we expressed a firm attitude to policies here. If we served our interests as well as Europe seems to have served its own interests, this country would be better off. Perhaps we should emulate the priorities that Europe proposes. It is astonishing that with all the energy self-sufficiency that we enjoy we have become the sick man of Europe while our oil reserves have been extracted to a fantastic extent. In the mid-1970s, or even in the late 1970s, no one could have imagined that Britain would be brought to the sorry pass in which it is now placed. One reason for that is that the Government have demonstrated that they are not competent to operate an energy policy. They have not even tried to follow one.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The general point of the document can be summed up briefly. It is that energy should be provided when required at an acceptable cost. It is also important to have a secure supply of resources to stop the threat of shortages that eventually affect the quality of life and undermine the economy. More specifically, the document speaks of strengthening the internal market and transport policy and securing the development of industry and job creation.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions relating to solid fuel, because that is the type of energy with which I am involved. The Commission would like to
maintain and if possible increase, the market share of solid fuels
because, since 1973, Community coal production has fallen by 16 per cent. while coal imports have doubled to 20 per cent. That must be considered. The statement seems all right at first, but it could be altered slightly. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in Europe in a few weeks' time. I believe that by inserting the words "Community-produced" before "solid fuels", the sentence would be a little clearer and it would satisfy me, if not others. The sentence would then read:
maintain and if possible increase, the market share of Community-produced solid fuels
That is vital for Britain and the coal mining industry. Paragraph 73 of the document shows that Community production has fallen by 16 per cent. The real use of coal has dropped by 5·5 per cent. Why will we allow, as paragraph 29 says:
imports of coal … from third countries … to increase"?
Is not an increase of 189 per cent. in imported coal during the past 10 years enough? Is that not terribly high for a country that sits on coal? Will the Minister accept paragraph 29, or put it in for discussion?
What effort have the Government made to assist corporations that are trying to develop new technologies which can cope with the tighter environmental standards that we all subscribe to? What has been done to assist those experimenting with coal-water mixtures? That is a vital matter.
In 1980, the Prime Minister attended the Venice summit. Paragraph 12 of the communiqué said:
Together we intend to double coal production and use by early 1990".
What has happened to that prediction? According to paragraph 80 of the document,
Solid fuels will play a key rôle in the electricity sector … the consumption of solid fuels in this sector could increase by 40 million tons of coal equivalent by 1995.

What measures are being taken to ensure that that is Community-produced coal rather than imported coal? Its source is not stated clearly. That, too, is vital. If no provisions are made, and the majority of the increase goes to imported coal, will the market be in the same situation as in the early 1970s, but relying on imported coal rather than oil? Will we be in a similar position if we do not depend on the production of our own solid fuel?
There are different ways of fulfilling this increase in tonnage, but the only correct way—even though it may not suit the Government's philosophy—is to plan ahead. Coal cannot be obtained overnight. It cannot be produced in a factory. It now takes 10 to 15 years to open a mine. We must therefore plan well ahead. Market forces do not come into it, because without proper planning one cannot produce to satisfy demand. There is nothing wrong with Britain supplying the extra 40 million tonnes in Europe, but that means planning ahead.
Equally, it is no good our saying that we shall increase productivity. There is such a thing as price, and an increase in productivity without an increase in production will solve nothing. In a capital-intensive industry such as mining, increased productivity and decreased production is likely to increase unit costs unless all the capital is written of. Therefore, there must be increased productivity and increased production at the same time so that unit costs are kept down. That is essential.
We should allow the British mining industry to produce more tonnage. If the Government give the industry the money that it needs to invest, it can give Europe all the energy it desires without the necessity of going to the Third world. I hope that the Minister makes those points when he goes to Europe.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I did not intend to speak, but I asked the Minister a question about the objectives of the EEC and the objectives of the United Kingdom. I listened intently to what he said, but he did not answer the question to my satisfaction. Has this debate been a charade, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pursue the objectives that he outlined?
If the Government have objectives, they must get shot of market forces. Alternatively, if they allow market forces to dictate to this country, there can be no objectives because market forces fluctuate over the years if not month by month. If market forces are to determine the size and shape of the United Kingdom's energy policy, the Minister must convince me that it is worth while following these EEC objectives.
The only common policy in the EEC seems to relate to agriculture. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have a word with his gaffer to see whether aspects of farming policy can be incorporated into energy policy. If we had such co-ordination, no one would criticise the Government.
I have heard the words "forward planning" on a number of occasions, but I am afraid that it is a foreign language to the Government. They are incapable of forward planning. If they had forward planning, they would not be squandering the oil reserves and other of our energy reserves, but would be making sure that our capacities are used in a planned way without any outside interference from market forces. Will the Minister tell us whether he


intends to let the market forces determine our energy policies, or whether he will have objectives to determine the energy policy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond immediately to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) by assuring him that the Government are committed to objectives in an energy policy. I thought that I had earlier made it clear that the Government are not, and do not believe that it is common sense to be, committed to a detailed policy in the form of a blueprint. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, the objectives laid out at the time of our last debate do not bear comparision with what has happened since then. We subscribe to many of the objectives, but it does not make sense to try to apply a detailed policy.
We pay attention to debates such as this, and the points that are raised will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself and, where appropriate, we will make sure that they are represented in the Council of Ministers. A number of detailed points have been raised that I shall want to consider further before the Council meets.
The right hon. Member and the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Don Valley referred in particular to the problems of the coal industry. This was a subject of another debate, and was dealt with in much more detail by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary took on board the arguments and views set out.
We are committed to the objective of utilising properly our indigenous resources—in the European Community we are the country most blessed with them. Here, I refute what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said about a lack of strategy. We should not be putting the money that we are into the coal industry, if we did not believe that there was a long-term future for that industry, but, as he and the House know, our resources of coal extend not into decades longer but probably centuries longer than our resources of oil. We should be foolish to ignore that. If the Government had no strategy, we would not be putting resources into coal to the extent that we are, and we would not have the commitment to create a viable coal industry. That is our commitment, and we hope to be able to succeed because we believe that it is in the country's interests to exploit those resources for those who work in the industry in the most effective way possible.
A considerable number of other coal issues were raised, and I assure the House that in the Community we shall continue to stand up for the objectives of our energy policy, as we have in the past, and for the interests of our industry, particularly where funds have been available for development, whether they are of a social or other nature. When attending the Council of Ministers, I have argued to make sure that we get a share of what is available and ensure it reflects the importance and position of the industry. So often, self-sufficiency is considered in terms of oil and gas resources, but coal resources are equally important.

Mr. Hardy: I would not challenge that, but many of us are worried about whether the Government are making it clear to Europe that it should respect the advance that

has been made in the British coal industry and recognise that it should not require British coal prices, which must reflect the costs of production, to be below the price of coal which is now being dumped in European markets.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Coal has been discussed at meetings in Europe that I have attended and, although criticism has often been thrown at us about the average production costs of our coal, which by some standards appears to be high, I have been at pains to point out that production costs at our better pits and those under development are well below the European average. Therefore, we can demonstrate that Britain's coal industry has a long-term future and that we shall continue to support it. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point.
The fall in oil prices is a matter of interest to the Community. It has already been discussed with the Commission. It is interesting that it believes that the position must be watched and monitored but does not consider that any intervention by it would be appropriate at this stage. No doubt that matter will be discussed at the Council of Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman said, one must consider falling oil prices in relation to the effect that that has on the balance of the energy market and on other fuels.
The hon. Member for Gordon dwelt on that subject more than others and he must remember, as other hon. Members do, that Britain is not only an oil-producing nation; we are a considerable energy-consuming nation and a considerable oil-consuming nation. One of Britain's most dramatic experiences was the hike in the oil price in the 1970s. It triggered off the world recession and Britain's trade and economic difficulties. People do not understand that a fall in the oil price is bad but that equally, as a consumer country, that brings benefit to many of our industries. It can bring benefit to employment and to consumers, domestic and otherwise.
If one adopts the view that I regret the hon. Member for Gordon largely takes, that Britain is a producer country, that is to forget and ignore an important consumer interest. Britain and Norway have exactly the same view on this and their interests are not the same as those of the OPEC countries. Of course, we have informal contacts with individual OPEC members. There always have been and they continue. But to have any kind of formal dealings with OPEC in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests would not be in the best interests of Europe or Norway. The Governments of both countries agree about that.

Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and the Secretary of State had a meeting with the Norwegian Minister for energy and that the United Kingdom's policy is absolutely in line with Norway's?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend and I met the Norwegian Minister during his visit yesterday to London, as was reported in today's newspapers. There is no difference in policy between Britain and Norway.

Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman said that Britain was also an oil-consuming nation and that consumers can enjoy advantages from a fall in oil prices. Does he agree that it would be regrettable if the Government sought to recoup some of the lost revenue resulting from decreased oil prices through increases in the duty on petrol greater than the increase as a result of index linking?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that that will be a matter for the Council of Minister's when it meets in March. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will receive much advice on this and other matters between now and Budget day.
The hon. Member for Gordon disagrees with the policies of this Government and the previous one in going for a fast rate of exploration and development of our resources. I make one point to the hon. Gentleman that was made in a recent letter to a newspaper—we have at least had the benefit of much of the oil produced over some years at a high price. Most importantly—unfortunately, the hon. Member for Gordon does not recognise the importance of this, but I note it from a constituency point of view—we have seen the development in Britain of the supply industry, providing the goods and services that the oil companies and industries require.

Mr. Orme: And refineries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall come to that.
Britain's industry is competitive with the rest of the world in a way that Norway's industry is not. Without our policies, we would not have had those benefits. I have no doubt from talking to the oil companies and the supply industries that they do not disagree with the policy that this Government and the previous Government have followed.

Mr. Bruce: Of course I recognise the benefits we have had. Two points arise from that. First, if it was right for us to sell when the price was high, is there not an argument for holding back when the price is low until the price recovers? I recognise that the supply industry has benefited. Secondly, if the price collapses and stays down at $11 or $12 a barrel, might that not depress the industry's prosperity?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not begun to understand what the oil industry is all about. Does he not realise that the oil industry made development plans, undertook exploration and invested billions of pounds on the understanding that the Government would not interfere in the commercial decisions the firms took? That has been the recognised policy from the beginning. If it is changed, we shall destroy one of the great assets we have in the North sea—policy stability. That means that there is little doubt that, no matter how serious conditions in the oil industry world wide become, our offshore industry will be attractive. I know from my contacts with the oil industry—I am sure that they do not differ from the contacts of the hon. Member for Gordon—that the United Kingdom's offshore industry is the most attractive in the world, not least because of our policies.
I urge the hon. Member for Gordon to consult more closely with the supply side of the industry and the oil companies. I think that he will find that there is little support for the type of policies which he sought to advocate and which I do not believe will be in the interests of Britain.

Mr. Redmond: During the discussions with the Norwegian Minister, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the sale of Norwegian gas to Britain?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: So far as I know, Norway does not yet intend becoming a member of the European Community. Therefore, I do not think that that subject will arise at the meeting of the Council of Ministers.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Gordon said about nuclear power. I think that the House and those outside will take note of the ambivalent attitude of the hon. Gentleman towards that. He tried to draw credit to Scotland by saying that Scotland has a higher percentage of nuclear generation than the rest of the United Kingdom and that it was much closer to the European objective, but he failed to say that that is one of the reasons why electricity in Scotland has tended to be cheaper than in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that for both industrial and domestic consumers in Scotland that has been an advantage. I hope that industrial and domestic consumers in Scotland will note that the hon. Gentleman is against an extension of electricity generation which is to the benefit of consumers in Scotland.
Perhaps what is most significant is that the hon. Member for Gordon is opposed to Sellafield and supports the closure of that plant on the north-west coast of England. I take note of that and I hope that those outside the House also take note. I shall say no more than that.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East raised a number of points, and I apologise if I have not covered all of them. Some of them are certainly important. I acknowledge what he said about energy efficiency. It is correct that our objective of 20 per cent. is a little lower than the European objective and over a slightly longer time scale, but we believe that this country can achieve its aim. It is certainly an objective which my right hon. Friend, myself and my colleagues in the Department of Energy will pursue with considerable vigour.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the subject of refineries. That concerns me because in Britain we have carried through a degree of rationalisation in the refinery industry which is as great as that which has taken place in almost any other country in Europe. One or two other countries which came slightly later to this area are having to carry that through now. That policy has been painful, particularly for jobs in certain areas, but it means that we have a more viable industry which is better able to compete in a very competitive world market.
I am concerned about the threat of competition from imports of petroleum products from the middle east. We have discussed that in a relevant European context. It is important that we work with our colleagues in Europe and with our colleagues in the International Energy Agency to ensure that we meet any challenge fairly and share the burdens with our partners in Europe and in the IEA.
We have had a useful debate. I have not covered all the points. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, there is an element of schizophrenia in the discussion. I am criticised for my earlier remarks because it appeared that I was picking what suited Britain and leaving out what did not and yet I am told to stand up for British interests and ensure that the interests of British industry are properly represented. I believe that that is right. I worked for four years in agriculture and, as I said to the hon. Member for Don Valley, my experiences there do not encourage me to seek an extension of similar policies to energy.
I assure the House that, where the objectives are in the interests of Britain and in the broader interests of Europe, we shall support them. At the same time, it is important fully to represent Britain's interests because of the importance of our energy industries to our interests which are not necessarily the same as the interests of other countries in Europe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7163/85 and endorses the adoption of new Community Energy objectives for the period to 1995 as references for the guidance of Member States.

Ijaz Ahmed Malik and Gurmail Singh

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to mention two constituency cases. The first case with which I wish to deal is that of Ijaz Ahmed Malik, who is a cousin of Robina Kauser, a constituent of mine, who is a British subject. Mr. Malik was originally from Jhelum city in Pakistan. Robina purchased a house in Preston so that she could marry Mr. Malik and settle down with him.
Mr. Malik arrived on 14 January 1984 to visit an uncle, and clearly had it in mind to establish further contact with his intended wife. They were interviewed on 24 May 1984 in Preston, having gone through a civil marriage on 21 February, and a religious marriage in April 1984. That interview led to the Minister describing Mr. Malik as an illegal immigrant. Against that background the Minister had to decide about his removal.
A child was born to that couple in April 1985, and is now about 10 months old. The marriage was arranged in accordance with Asian custom and practice. On 29 July 1985 Mr. Malik departed voluntarily taking with him his wife and child. His wife was in employment at the time, but she obtained leave to go to Pakistan with him. She subsequently returned and resumed her employment.
I am interested in seeing that that family is reunited with the least possible delay. Representations have been made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I understand that an application by Mr. Malik for re-entry is being considered on 1 April this year.
The Minister is not directly involved in the entry certificate procedure, which is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I hope that he will do whatever he can and exercise such influence as he may have to ensure that the family is reunited with the least possible delay.
The second case is possibly more difficult. It is more pressing. It is the case of Gurmail Singh. He was engaged to Rabinder Kaur Geeta. Rabinder went to India on 12 April 1983. I emphasise that date because we are talking about a case that has some history. They married on 20 June 1983. It was a genuine marriage in accordance with their custom, and the husband and wife were interviewed on 12 March 1984. Unfortunately, because of the nature of that interview and some of the answers by Gurmail Singh to the questions put to him by the officer examining the case, he was subsequently refused entry. The wife returned to the United Kingdom on 2 April, and a child was born on 19 September 1984.
The Minister has alleged in no uncertain terms that the primary purpose of the marriage was to gain entry to the United Kingdom. I have known the family for some time, although not for a long time. Clearly there is a strong bond of affection between the couple. Gurmail arrived on 3 November 1985, and on 15 November they were both interviewed in Liverpool. Unfortunately, during the interview the immigration officer asked Mrs. Singh whether I had told her to invite her husband for a visit to the United Kingdom on the basis that I would see what could be done to help them. Such a question is completely out of order. I certainly made no such suggestion to her, and I suspect that it may be a breach of privilege for


immigration officers to ask questions regarding the activities of Members of Parliament. The civil marriage took place on 9 January 1986.
The Minister seeks to remove Mr. Singh, leaving his wife—a British subject—with their son, who is now 18 months old. It is a genuine marriage. Only a few days ago the local press carried a pleasant picture of the husband, wife and son, together with an interview given by Mrs. Singh, in which she stated that they were married three years previously because they loved one another, that they had a baby because they loved one another, but that now they must live apart. Clearly she feels strongly about that and so do I.
The Minister may argue that the immigration rules have been followed, but a good family will be broken up. That is not the sort of policy to be pursued in a country which claims to be Christian. It is an illustration of man's inhumanity to man, and is in marked contrast to the case of Mr. Rabha, a Libyan, who was allowed to rejoin his family in the United Kingdom. He was present at St. James's square during the terrorist incident which resulted in the murder of WPC Fletcher. The Minister's decision was that he should not be readmitted, but subsequently an adjudicator took a different decision, and Mr. Rabha is now settled here with his family.
Despite the immigration rules, the Minister should look at the case of Gurmail Singh compassionately and do what he can, even at this late hour, to ensure that the family remains united in Preston.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) spoils his case and does not do himself justice when he drags in the case of the Libyan, which has nothing to do with the instant case. Mr. Rabha was refused permission to come to the United Kingdom by the Home Office but exercised his right of appeal and was allowed to come because an adjudicator found in his favour. This case deals with two people who do not qualify to come to the United Kingdom.
Obviously, the cases are important to the people involved, but they are also of public importance because the public is entitled to expect our immigration laws to be enforced, and the rules approved by Parliament to be properly applied. These are both marriage cases and I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of our immigration rules concerning marriage and in particular the primary purpose rule. I see that it is Labour party policy to abolish the rule—just one of the party's pledges that would drive a coach and horses through our control and, with its other pledges, increase immigration by tens of thousands. But it is not just a question of numbers. It is ridiculous that at this of all times the Labour party should be planning to make it easy for young men—many of them like Mr. Singh with no skills and never having had a job in their lives—to enter the country by using marriage as a device. Opinions may differ on whether parents should be encouraging children to marry boys abroad who have been brought up in an entirely different way rather than their contempories in British society. But the primary purpose rule is in the general public interest and those cases do not illustrate any defect in the rule, rather the refusal of people to accept

immigration requirements approved by a democratically elected Parliament. All too often a girl goes through a marriage and has a child and then the Home Office is asked to pick up the pieces when—this is certainly true in the case of Mr. Singh—anybody with a scrap of sense could have seen before the marriage that the man would not qualify to come here and would have no claim to come here.
I shall deal with the cases and first with that of Mr. Malik. On 14 January 1984 he arrived in this country and sought leave to enter as a visitor. He said that he had three months' leave from his job in Pakistan and wanted to stay with his uncle. He said that he had no plans to marry here or in Pakistan, and on the strength of what he said he was given leave to enter for three months. Within little over a month he had married Miss Kauser and was asking to stay here as a foreign husband. In saying on arrival here that he had no plans to marry he was lying quite deliberately, because what unfortunately the immigration officer did not know when he admitted Mr. Malik but what we know now was that back in 1983 the hon. Member for Preston had approached me on behalf of Miss Kauser asking how she could obtain entry for Mr. Malik to come here as her fiancé. Far from the man having no plans to marry when he arrived in Britain on 14 January, the whole arrangement for marriage had already been entered into. At the interview which followed his asking to stay as a foreign husband, he lied again and so did Miss Kauser, because they both said that they had never met or even corresponded with each other before he had arrived in this country. That was nonsense, because the truth was that before his arrival the arrangements for the marriage had proceeded to such an extent that Miss Kauser had even bought a home for them to live in. One thing was certain; Mr. Malik had entered the country by deception and his entry was therefore illegal.
When the hon. Member for Preston made representations to me on behalf of the couple I looked into the case most carefully, but it seemed to me that I could not overlook the deceit and allow Mr. Malik to stay here, without his having obtained entry clearance as the rules provide, when thousands of others were having to wait in the queue for entry clearance in the Indian sub-continent and when, to put it mildly, there were doubts as to his primary purpose in entering into the marriage.
Mr. Malik is due to be interviewed on 1 April, which is good news for him. The case will be referred to me, and I can promise him that I shall consider it with great care and examine all the circumstances, including any compassionate circumstances that he may wish to advance. If he is refused entry clearance, he will have the right to appeal to the independent appellate authorities. However, I do not think that any rational person could say what the hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying in the Lancashire Evening Post: that Mr. Malik has been put in an impossible position because of a ruling by me. If ever a couple were the authors of their own misfortune, it is Mr. and Mrs. Malik.
As to the case of Mr. Singh, in 1981 he applied in Delhi to come here to marry Miss Geeta. At his interview with the entry clearance officer in December 1982, Mr. Singh said that the marriage had been arranged by his uncle who knew of his desire to go abroad and better himself; and before the marriage had been arranged he had planned to go to Dubai or to Iraq to work. When asked whether the marriage had been arranged to enable him to go abroad to


work, he said yes. Miss Geeta, who was born in the United Kingdom, had not, at the time Mr. Singh applied to come, ever been to India. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the time of the application, she was only 16 years old.
Mr. Singh's application failed and it failed because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied either that the couple had met or that the primary purpose of the proposed marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. But despite that clear—one might say inevitable—finding, someone, presumably the parents, arranged for this young girl barely out of school, who I am sure they expected to live in this country for the rest of her life, to go out to India and meet the man and marry him. Mr. Singh then made another application to come here for settlement, this time not as a fianće but as a husband. Almost inevitably, that application was turned down like his first one. Mr. Singh appealed to the adjudicator, but lost, and he was refused leave to appeal to the tribunal.
That is the history thus far. What happened next was that on 3 November last year this man, who had twice applied for entry clearance and twice been turned down, turned up at Heathrow claiming entry as a visitor. His wife had by that time returned here and given birth to a child, and Mr. Singh said that he wished to persuade his wife to return to India with him. However, his wife said—this is scarcely surprising—that there was not the slightest prospect of her doing this. In considering Mr. Singh's application for leave to enter as a visitor, the immigration officer took into account all the relevant facts of the case, including the details of Mr. Singh's attempts to gain settlement in the United Kingdom. He concluded that he could not be satisfied that he was genuinely seeking entry for the period of stay as stated by him—two months. Leave to enter as a visitor was refused, but temporary admission was given while I considered representations made by the hon. Member for Preston.
I have considered the case with care, but I cannot see how the immigration officer could possibly have been wrong in his decision. It is clear that Mr. Singh's intention

was not to pay a visit, but to do that which he has long wanted to do—settle in the United Kingdom. Indeed, that is now accepted by the hon. Gentleman, who is asking me to allow him to stay, not as a visitor, but permanently as a foreign husband.
To insist that Mr. Singh should be removed from this country when he has now got here may seem hard, but if ever a person was the author of his own misfortune, it is Mr. Singh. If I were to allow him to stay I would be allowing someone to stay who quite clearly does not qualify to stay under the rules approved by Parliament, and I would be allowing him to stay when he must have known perfectly well and when his wife and her family must have known perfectly well at the time of the marriage that he did not qualify to settle here. It is, therefore, a step I am not prepared to take.
It is the job of the Government to apply a control that is fair as well as firm. It certainly would not be fair to the vast majority of genuine applicants waiting abroad to be interviewed to come here if individuals like Mr. Singh were able to circumvent the control by just arriving here. At the moment there is not even an outstanding application for settlement. He is here just on temporary admission, having formally asked to come as a visitor. If he still wishes to press a claim to come here for settlement, he must go back to the Indian sub-continent and apply in the proper way.
Those seeking settlement must go through the proper procedures. It must be made plain that those who pretend to the immigration service that they are merely coming, for a limited visit, and then, once in this country, seek to stay, help neither their own cases nor those of others who may be in a similar position. Being fair to others means that inevitably they must return overseas, unless there are indeed the most exceptionally compelling, compassionate circumstances. I am sorry for the girl, but I do not find any such compelling circumstances here.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.